Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

Pier and Harbour Provisional Orders (Cowes and Yarmouth) Bill,

Read the Third time, and passed.

Oral Answers to Questions — LEAGUE OF NATIONS.

NEW BUILDING.

Mr. DAY: 1.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can give particulars of the progress that has been made with reference to the new buildings of the League of Nations?

The SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Arthur Henderson): Steady progress is being made with the work on the new League of Nations building. If my hon. Friend desires further details, I will send him a copy of the report issued last month by the Building Committee to the Secretary-General of the League of Nations.

Mr. DAY: Can my right hon. Friend say whether the architect has submitted final plans?

Mr. HENDERSON: I believe so. The building is proceeding, and I suppose it is proceeding according to the plans.

Colonal HOWARD-BURY: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether any of the contracts have been given to any British firm?

Mr. HENDERSON: I think I must have notice of that question.

POLAND (UKRAINIAN MINORITY).

Mr. L'ESTRANGE MALONE: 8.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the committee of three
over which he presided was aware that the negotiations between the Polish Government and the Ukrainian minority in Eastern Galioia on the subject of the Ukrainian complaints concerning the reprisals inflicted on them by the Polish Government during last autumn and other breaches of their minority rights broke down because the Polish Government insisted, as a condition for further discussions, that the Ukrainians must withdraw their petitions which they had placed before the League of Nations; and whether, seeing that such a condition is a denial of the minority rights of the Ukrainians and an infringement of the minority treaty signed by Poland, and that the responsibility for the observation of minority treaties was specifically placed on the League of Nations, the League obtained any assurances from the Polish Government with regard to the future conduct of negotiations?

Mr. A. HENDERSON: The Polish Government have denied that such a condition was ever made by them. If it had been, the Committee of Three would naturally have regarded it as entirely inadmissible.

ECONOMIC SITUATION.

Mr. BOOTHBY: 45.
asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the increasing severity of the world depression, he will extend invitations for an international conference, similar to the Genoa Conference of 1922, to consider the economic situation in all its aspects?

The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Ramsay MacDonald): I would remind the hon. Member that the League of Nations is at present conducting an investigation into the causes and phases of the world depression, and that various of its organs are engaged in studying possible forms of remedial action. In these circumstances I see no advantage in attempting to initiate a further world conference independently of the League.

Mr. BOOTH BY: Is it not a fact that we shall not get any action by the Governments of the world merely having inquiries by experts, and that until we can get the political heads of all the Governments together no ultimate action is likely to be taken?

The PRIME MINISTER: Yes, but the findings of the sub-committees of experts
have to be passed in review by, I think they call it the co-ordinating committee, upon which there are Cabinet Ministers.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the United States are represented on the committees to which he refers?

The PRIME MINISTER: No.

Mr. BROCKWAY: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when the report is likely to be published?

The PRIME MINISTER: I cannot say. I think there is a statement about the report in the newspapers this morning.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Have the United States been invited to send representatives?

The PRIME MINISTER: I must have notice of that question.

EGYPT (UNIVERSITY PROFESSORS).

Colonel HOWARD-BURY: 2.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs the numbers of British professors at the Egyptian universities in July, 1929, and the number at the present date; and how many of these have been replaced by foreigners?

Mr. A. HENDERSON: In 1929 there were 18 British professors at the Egyptian University. At the present time there are 19. The second part of the question does not, therefore, arise.

Oral Answers to Questions — CHINA.

EXTRA-TBRRITORIALITY.

Colonel GRETTON: 3.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if His Majesty's Government intend to defer entering into a definite agreement with China in regard to extra-territorial rights until they have been able to examine the final report to the Shanghai Municipal Council on this subject by Judge Feetham, which is expected to be issued within the next few weeks?

Mr. A. HENDERSON: As I informed the House on the 8th June, the negotiations between Sir Miles Lampson and Dr. Wang have reached a stage which
enables them to be reported to then-respective Governments, but it is likely that some time will elapse before the proposed treaty can be signed. In the meantime, Mr. Justice Feetham s report will be carefully examined.

Sir AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Will the right hon. Gentleman make Mr. Justice Feetham's report available to Members of this House—I do not ask for a general circulation, but by placing copies or one copy in the Library—and can the right hon. Gentleman say when he proposes to make his statement to this House in regard to the policy in China of His Majesty's Government?

Mr. HENDERSON: In regard to the first part of the supplementary question, I have already informed the House that two copies of the first volume of the report are laid in the Library. The second volume is not available, but I will follow the same course in regard to it. With regard to making a statement, I made an answer, I think on Monday, that the conditions in China at the moment might cause some time to elapse before a final settlement had been reached, and under such conditions as obtain to-day I think it would be against the public interest for me to make any statement.

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: I do not want to press the right hon. Gentleman on the exact condition of the negotiations. What I ask is for a statement of the policy which His Majesty's Government are pursuing, in general terms.

Mr. HENDERSON: Yes, but I regret that I could not make a statement of the policy which we are pursuing in general terms without showing exactly what was going on, and I have to keep in mind the repercussions of any public statement on the conditions which obtain just at this moment in China.

Mr. GODFREY LOCKER-LAMP-SON: 6.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether an agreement has been reached by Sir Miles Lampson and the Nanking Government as a result of the recent negotiations on extraterritoriality?

Mr. A. HENDERSON: I would refer the right hon. Gentleman to the answer given on Monday last to the hon. Member for Kidderminister (Mr. Wardlaw-Milne).

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: Was this agreement reached before the right hon. Gentleman had had an opportunity of studying the Feetham report?

Mr. HENDERSON: I cannot see the connection between the agreement to which I referred on Monday and the Feetham report.

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: Is the question of Shanghai included in the agreement which has been made?

Mr. HENDERSON: The information will be given on the whole subject, as I have already stated in reply to the right hon. Gentleman opposite.

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: But the right hon. Gentleman declined to give me any information. When will the information be given?

Mr. HENDERSON: I would remind the right hon. Gentleman that I said that I would make a statement, but that the conditions existing at present did not make any statement advisable at this moment.

SHANGHAI.

Sir KINGSLEY WOOD: 4.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can give the House any information concerning the agreement that has been reached by the Chinese Foreign Minister with the French authorities for the reorganisation of the French Mixed Court in Shanghai; and whether the Chinese Ministry of Justice have made preparations for the establishment of a number of special courts so that the Regulations regarding China's jurisdiction over foreigners can be put into operation as from 1st January, 1932?

Mr. A. HENDERSON: I understand that negotiations for the reorganisation of the French Mixed Court in Shanghai are proceeding, but I have no information that an agreement has been reached. So far as I am aware, no preparations for the establishment of special courts have yet been made by the Chinese Government.

Sir K. WOOD: May I take it that the right hon. Gentleman is keeping in close touch with the situation?

Mr. HENDERSON: I should be neglecting my duty if I were not keeping in close touch with the situation.

RUSSIA (LABOUR CONDITIONS).

Sir K. WOOD: 5.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has received any information from the British Ambassador concerning the new decree of the Central Executive Committee of the Soviet Republic to raise the discipline and productivity of labour and the new degree to stimulate the loading of timber this summer at the Soviet ports; and whether he will obtain a copy of these decrees for the information of the House?

Mr. A. HENDERSON: I presume that the decrees to which the right hon. Gentleman refers are those of the Central Executive Committee, dated the 3rd June, and of the People's Commissariat of Labour, dated the 5th April. I am sending the right hon. Gentleman a translation of both these documents.

Mr. CHARLES WILLIAMS: Will translations be made available to the House for our general information?

Mr. SMITHERS: Central Executive Committee, of what?

Mr. HENDERSON: If the hon. Gentleman will put down a question, I will give him an answer.

Mr. WILLIAMS: The question is on the Paper. Will the right hon. Gentleman obtain a copy for the information of the House?

Mr. HENDERSON: I undertook to supply the right hon. Gentleman who put the question. If there is to be a general circulation, I must consider it.

Mr. WILLIAMS: But cannot we have a copy in the Library?

Mr. SMITHERS: The right hon. Gentleman referred to the Central Executive Committee. I ask, Of what body?

Mr. HENDERSON: If you take question and answer, you get the information that you require.

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE.

INTERNATIONAL MORTGAGE CREDITS COMPANY.

Sir RENNELL RODD: 7.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs for what purposes, under what condi-
tions, and to what amount His Majesty's Government propose to participate in an International Agricultural Credit Bank?

Mr. A. HENDERSON: The scheme for an International Agricultural Mortgage Credits Company was decided upon as the result of discussions in the Commission on European Union. Its purpose is to make loans on mortgage, through the agency of central banks, to peasant cultivators in Central and Eastern Europe, and, in particular, to assist them to change over from wheat growing to other forms of agricultural production. It is hoped to raise in various financial centres a capital of £10,000,000, of which £1,000,000 would be issued at the outset. In addition, a special reserve fund of £1,000,000 is to be set up, to which all Governments who are parties to the Convention will contribute. The share of His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom would be approximately £120,000. It is proposed that this reserve should be deposited with the Bank of International Settlements, should bear interest, and, in due course, be repaid out of the profits of the company.

Sir R. RODD: What are the limits of the portions of Europe to which this is to be given? We are told Central and Eastern. Does that include the Central German States and Austria?

Mr. HENDERSON: It certainly includes Austria.

Mr. ARTHUR MICHAEL SAMUEL: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us how this is going to benefit Great Britain?

Mr. HENDERSON: It is not very easy —[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] If hon. Members will wait for my reply, they will not cheer so loudly. It is not easy, in reply to a supplementary question, to answer the hon. Gentleman, but the countries that we are trying to assist in this way are customers of ours to the tune of something like £15,000,000 per annum.

Mr. MARJORIBANKS: And debtors of this country!

Several HON. MEMBERS: rose—

Mr. SPEAKER: We cannot debate this question now.

NATIONAL MARK (CIDER).

Mr. W. B. TAYLOR: 55.
asked the Minister of Agriculture if he can state the number of firms who have adopted the National Mark scheme for cider; and what proportion they represent of the total number of cider makers in this country?

Mr. THURTLE (Lord of the Treasury): I have been asked to reply. The number of authorised packers, namely, makers and battlers, of National Mark cider, is as follows:

Factory makers
24


Farm cider makers individually authorised
7


Associations of farm cider makers, covering 33 members
2


Bottlers
10


Total
43

The Ministry is without information as to the present total number of cider makers in the country. In September, 1930, however, there were 33 members of the National Association of Cider Makers, which includes most factory makers, and of these, 22 are already authorised under the National Mark scheme.

ALLOTMENTS.

Mr. LOUIS SMITH: 54.
asked the Minister of Agriculture if he will state the number of allotments which have come into existence in the last 12 months; whether the 64,000 men who have been assisted with the provision of seeds and other requirements were also provided with allotments, or whether this represents a demand, and, if so, to what extent, by people who were already in possession of allotments?

Mr. THURTLE: I have been asked to reply. The returns which are collected yearly relate to the position on 31st December, and no information is yet available as to the number of new allotments created for the unemployed. Particulars are being obtained by the Central Allotments Committee, but until the detailed returns are received from the districts, it is not possible to state the proportion of the 64,000 assisted unemployed persons for whom plots were provided for the first time. It is known, however, that, apart from new land provided, a large number
of plots which have lain derelict for some time have again been brought into cultivation as a result of the scheme.

Mr. SMITH: Having regard to the failure of this scheme during the present season, will the hon. Gentleman make inquiry as to the reason why, in many districts, although land has been provided and this very generous scheme of low-priced materials has been offered, so few applications have been received?

Mr. THURTLE: Without admitting that the scheme has been a failure, I will see that the observation of the hon. Gentleman is conveyed to my right hon. friend.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL NAVY.

LOWER DECK PROMOTIONS.

Captain W. G. HALL: 9.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he is yet in a position to state when the first selection board under the new scheme of promotions from the lower deck is likely to sit; and when, approximately, he expects to make the first promotions to sub-lieutenant thereunder?

The FIRST LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Mr. A. V. Alexander): The procedure now adopted will take some little time before it produces candidates under the new conditions. It is anticipated that some candidates will have received the necessary preliminary instruction in time to have a selection board in 1933, and in the meantime we shall continue to select candidates on the existing basis.

BUILDING PROGRAMMES, 1930–31.

Commander SOUTHBY: 10.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty upon what dates it is expected that the keels of the cruisers and destroyers of the 1931 naval programme will be laid?

Mr. ALEXANDER: Subject to the statement I made on the Navy Estimates, the ships of the 1931 programme, in accordance with the regular practice, will be ordered at the end of the current financial year and the keels will then be laid as soon as the necessary preliminary work and collection of material have been accomplished.

Commander SOUTHBY: Can the right hon. Gentleman not say what the estimated date of the laying of keels will be?

Mr. ALEXANDER: No, I do not think it is possible for anyone to do that. Sometimes there are slight delays.

Commander SOUTHBY: 11.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty what are the estimated dates upon which it is expected that the various cruisers and destroyers of the 1930 naval programme will, respectively, be completed and ready for commissioning?

Mr. ALEXANDER: It is anticipated that two of the destroyers of the 1930 programme will complete towards the end of 1932 and the remaining destroyers and leader early in 1933. The cruisers are expected to complete in the summer and autumn of 1933.

Commander SOUTHBY: 12.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether the preliminary construction or the laying down of the keels of any of the cruisers and destroyers of the 1930 or 1931 naval programmes have been in any way retarded by reason of the naval agreement supposed to have been reached between France and Italy on 1st March last, or of the conversations continued between those countries and Great Britain subsequent to the breakdown of that agreement?

Mr. ALEXANDER: The answer is in the negative. As I informed the hon. and gallant Member on the 10th June (OFFICIAL REPORT, column 997), it is the usual practice not to place orders for the annual new construction programme until towards the close of the financial year.

Commander SOUTHBY: Does not the right hon. Gentleman now realise that his statement in the House that complete agreement had been reached between Italy and France was not only premature but definitely misleading?

Mr. ALEXANDER: Most certainly not misleading. However, I do not think that that question directly arises from the question on the Paper.

Mr. C. WILLIAMS: But it was premature.

HIS MAJESTY'S SUBMARINE "POSEIDON" (DEPENDANTS' PENSIONS).

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 13.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty what financial provisions are being made for the dependants of the ratings lost in His Majesty's submarine "Poseidon"; and whether any immediate payments are being made?

Mr. ALEXANDER: Payment of a qualifying allotment and of full marriage allowance is being made in the case of widows already in receipt of marriage allowance, for a period of four weeks following the date of notification of the husband's death, and forms of application for pension have been sent to all widows. Payment of pension under the authorised scale will commence as from the date of cessation of the qualifying allotment and marriage allowance. Payment of allowances to other dependants found to be eligible for grants will commence from the day following the date of the rating's death.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: How do these various pensions compare with the pensions that would be paid if these men had been killed in action?

Mr. ALEXANDER: I would like to have notice of that question. If my hon. and gallant Friend desires a comparison, I shall be able to supply the information.

Captain HALL: Will the right hon. Gentleman remember that if these men had lost their lives in civilian life, the amount of compensation would be vastly in excess of what their dependants will receive; and will he do his best to assist them, as some of them are, to my knowledge, in difficult circumstances?

Mr. ALEXANDER: The position is that we shall pay the same rates as we should pay for attributable pensions. Further to the supplementary question of the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Ken-worthy), I do not think that these rates are the same as those paid in respect of deaths attributable to the late War, as the scales have been revised since then.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I mean if they were killed in an action on a Chinese river, for instance.

Mr. ALEXANDER: We shall pay the pensions on that basis.

Captain HALL: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the scale is only 10s. to 14s. a week, which is very poor in these days?

ADMIRALTY CONTRACTS (WILLIAM JAMES MANUFACTURING COMPANY, LIMITED).

Mr. MANDER: 17.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether the William James Manufacturing Company, Limited, of Willenhall, is still on the Admiralty list; and whether it holds any contract at the present time?

Mr. ALEXANDER: The firm in question is still noted as eligible to tender for certain stampings and flanges, but has no contracts from the Admiralty at the present time.

Mr. MANDER: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this firm is endeavouring to force a wage rate of from 15s. to 20s. below the standard rate, and will he bear that in mind in placing any further contracts?

Mr. ALEXANDER: I have had my attention drawn to the dispute in which this firm is engaged at the present time, and I shall not be unmindful of any representations made to me on this matter.

PORTSMOUTH DOCKYARD (DISCHARGES).

Sir BERTRAM FALLE: 18.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he is aware that a number of men, some of long service and War service, are being discharged from the Royal Dockyard, Portsmouth; and if this is due to lack of work or of funds, and if these discharges are to continue?

Mr. ALEXANDER: I regret that it has been necessary to discharge within the last month 116 men from the works department at Portsmouth owing to the completion of a number of works. There may be a smaller number of additional discharges for the same reason.

Commander SOUTHBY: Would not this be a reason for expediting the new construction?

Mr. ALEXANDER: The hon. and gallant Gentleman is under a misapprehension. The men discharged are not engaged on naval construction, but in the works department. For some years there has been an increase in the number of buildings and general work in operation, and that work has come to an end.

BROADCASTING (COLONIES AND PROTECTORATES).

Sir PHILIP RICHARDSON: 19.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will state those overseas territories which would be able to benefit by the institution of colonial broadcasting; and whether such colonies favour and are willing to help financially such broadcasting?

Mr. CAMPBELL: 21.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he can state the attitude of the different Colonial Governments under his control with regard to the proposal to institute a system of Colonial broadcasting from this country; whether he will obtain from them a statement as to what broadcasting services from Europe are actually operating in their respective Colonies; and whether in view of the importance of the matter to trade and imperial relations, he will publish the information as a White Paper?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for DOMINION AFFAIRS (Mr. Lunn): The question of colonial broadcasting was discussed at the Colonial Office Conference in June, 1930, and all the representatives present at the conference were unanimously in favour of the introduction of such a service. I think that it may be assumed that all Colonial and Protectorate Governments would be prepared to assist in the cost of the service by paying over all, or a proportion of, the licence fees collected. As I stated in reply to the question put down by the hon. and gallant Member for the Isle of Wight (Captain P. Macdonald) for Monday last, a scheme for broadcasting to the British colonies and protectorates has recently been submitted by the British Broadcasting Corporation and is at present engaging the earnest attention of His Majesty's Government.

TANGANYIKA (ROAD TOLLS).

Sir P. RICHARDSON: 20.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether his attention has been drawn to a Bill recently before the Tanganyika legislative council with the object of instituting road tolls in order to protect the railway traffic; whether there are any other colonies where such road tolls are in existence; whether the proposals are
regarded with favour by His Majesty's Government; and whether it is proposed to take any action with regard to them?

Mr. LUNN: I have been asked to reply to this question. My Noble Friend has not yet received a copy of the Bill, which has been referred to a Select Committee of the Legislative Council, and in the meantime he docs not feel prepared to express any opinion on the proposals. The hon. Member will understand that in Tanganyika both the railways and the roads are owned and maintained by the Government whose duty it is to see that no undue burdens are placed upon it by unnecessary competition between the two. I am not aware of any road tolls in existence in other colonies.

COMMISSIONS TO COLONIES (MEMBERS' FEES).

Mr. DAY: 22.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies the amounts that have been paid in fees to members of commissions visiting the Colonies during the prevent two years; and will he give particulars?

Mr. LUNN: I have been asked to take this question. The only fees payable to members of commissions visiting the Colonies in the past two years are as follow:

1. Mauritius Sugar Commission:

Sir F. Watts (Sole Commissioner), 500 guineas from Mauritius funds.

2. West Indian Sugar Commission:

Lord Olivier, 650 guineas;

Mr. D. M. Semple, 500 guineas:

both from the funds of the various West Indian Colonies.

3. British Guiana Financial Commission:

Mr. W. Gaskell, £350;

Mr. D. S. MacGregor, £300;

both from British Guiana Funds.

Mr. DAY: Has it been the custom in the past, where payments have been made, for the home Government to make any contribution?

Mr. LUNN: I should like to have notice of a question as to the custom over a long term of years.

Oral Answers to Questions — KENYA.

HOSPITAL ACCOMMODATION, NAIROBI.

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: 28.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has received a copy of the report by Sir Edward Thornton on the Government European hospital at Nairobi, Kenya; and whether any action is being taken to give effect to any of the recommendations in that report, particularly as regards the accommodation of the nursing staff and the replacement of the existing buildings by a more modern type of hospital for Government officials and Europeans of small means?

Mr. LUNN: I have been asked to answer this question. The Governor of Kenya has not yet forwarded the report to which the right hon. Member refers, but will no doubt do so in due course with his observations on the recommendations which it contains.

Mr. C. WILLIAMS (for Sir B. PETO): 30.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether his attention has been called to the need of increased hospital accommodation at Nairobi, Kenya, for Europeans, Asiatics, and natives; whether his attention has been called to the report of a sub-committee of the executive council which recommended that £70,000 of the forthcoming loan should be allocated to this purpose; and whether this recommendation has the approval of his Department, and if effect will be given to it at the earliest possible date?

Mr. LUNN: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. My Noble Friend has approved of the inclusion in the schedule of further loan requirements of the Government of Kenya of a sum of £70,000, which is exclusive of establishment charges amounting to £10,500, for hospitals for Europeans, Indians and Africans at Nairobi, and he has no doubt that the provision of the facilities contemplated will be proceeded with as rapidly as circumstances permit.

CENTRAL GAOL, NAIROBI.

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: 29.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether his attention has been called to the unsatisfactory condition of the central gaol in Nairobi, Kenya, where, though
there are now 600 prisoners serving long-term sentences, the gaol building only provides permanent accommodation for 350; whether he is aware that the medical authorities have called attention to the bad lighting and ventilation of these permanent buildings, that the health of the prisoners is appreciably poorer than in other colonial central gaols, and that the incidence of tuberculosis is rising; will he state how many deaths among prisoners due to this latter disease have been recorded during the past three years; and what action he proposes to take to remedy this state of affairs?

Mr. LUNN: My Noble Friend is aware of the unsatisfactory conditions at the Nairobi prison to which the local medical authorities have drawn attention from time to time, but the fact that there had already been a general improvement and the steps contemplated to secure further improvements were explained in the reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell (Mr. Barr) on the 26th of November, 1930, of which I am sending the right hon. Member a copy. Since that date approval has been given for the inclusion of a sum of £95,000 for prison accommodation in the schedule of further loan requirements of the Government of Kenya. The number of deaths from tuberculosis at Nairobi prison in 1928 and 1929 was 10 in each year. My Noble Friend is not yet in possession of the corresponding statistics for 1930, nor of the report of the special investigation which has been undertaken into the incidence of that disease.

AFRICAN COLONIES (CHILD WELFARE).

Duchess of ATHOLL: 31.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies in which of the African Colonies there are services for child welfare and African women are being trained as midwives; and what tribes these measures are reaching?

Mr. LUNN: I have been asked to reply to this question. Child welfare services exist, and native women are being trained as midwives, in all the Tropical African Dependencies with the exception of Somaliland and the Gambia. These services are open to all native women, irrespective of their tribal origin;
though, as the Noble Lady will doubtless understand, mother and child welfare clinics, and training in midwifery, are at present available only at the more populous centres. Reference to the local governments would be necessary if information is desired as to the particular tribes which are profiting most from the facilities provided.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL AIR FORCE.

PARACHUTES.

Captain HAROLD BALFOUR: 32.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air how many lives have been saved during 1929 and 1930 by the use of parachutes in emergencies; and if all pilots of the Royal Air Force Reserve undergoing training at civil schools are bound by regulation to wear parachutes?

Major BEAUMONT THOMAS: 35.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air whether Reserve Air Force pilots are equipped with parachutes while carrying out their annual training?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for AIR (Mr. Montague): The number of forced parachute descents by occupants of Royal Air Force aircraft was 18 in 1929 and 22 in 1930. Parachutes for the use of Royal Air Force Reserve pilots are in course of issue to the civil schools which carry out reserve training; all pilots for whom parachutes are available are required to wear them while flying.

Captain BALFOUR: When is it anticipated that the issue of civilian pilots will be completed?

Mr. MONTAGUE: The issues are in progress, and it is anticipated that they will be complete in August.

Major THOMAS: Will the hon. Gentleman take steps to see that no Reserve pilots are permitted to carry out their training in the air unless they are equipped with parachutes; and can he say whether Lieutenant O'Brien, who was killed on the 8th June while carrying out training was so equipped?

Mr. MONTAGUE: The answer to the first part of the supplementary question is indicated in my reply. I must have notice of the second part of the question.

HOME DEFENCE FORCE (EXERCISES).

Captain BALFOUR: 33.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air if the home defence force of the Royal Air Force are to carry out day and night operational exercises during the summer; and, if so, whether he will arrange for Members who so desire to have an opportunity of visiting Royal Air Force stations in order to view the practical methods of home defence by the Royal Air Force units?

Mr. MONTAGUE: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. As regards the second part, my Noble Friend regrets that it would not be practicable, without seriously interfering with the exercises, to extend a general invitation to Members of this House as suggested by the hon. and gallant Member to visit Royal Air Force stations while the exercises are in progress.

Mr. MANDER: If it turns out that only a very limited number of Members are interested, will the hon. Member reconsider the question of visits?

Mr. MONTAGUE: I will consider any applications, of course. As far as a general invitation is concerned, I must refer the hon. Member to what I have already said.

Commander SOUTHBY: They are Liberals—preferential treatment!

DIESEL AERO ENGINES.

Captain BALFOUR: 34.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air if the Air Ministry are experimenting with aero engines on the Diesel principle; if he can state the stage which such experiments have reached; and when a British aircraft will fly equipped with an engine of this type?

Mr. MONTAGUE: For some years the Air Ministry has been developing engines on the Diesel principle both for aeroplanes and for airships; the hon. and gallant Member will no doubt recall that the engines of airship R.101 were of that type. Considerable experience has been gained from experimental forms of these engines, and the stage has now been reached when a complete engine of this type is ready for trial. It will shortly be put through the full type test for air-
worthiness and, if this is satisfactorily completed, flight trials will probably be carried out during the summer.

ACCIDENTS AND CASUALTIES.

Mr. BECKETT: 36.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air the total number of accidents to Royal Air Force machines this year; the number of casualties; and the number of deaths involved by these accidents?

Mr. MONTAGUE: During this year there have been 52 accidents to Royal Air Force aeroplanes involving casualties to personnel, the total number of such casualties being 87; of these 41 were cases of injury and 46 of loss of life.

Mr. BECKETT: Is my hon. Friend satisfied that every possible precaution is taken?

Mr. MONTAGUE: Most certainly.

AIRSHIPS (COAL OIL FUEL).

Mr. JOHN: 38.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air whether the experiments carried out in the use of fuel oil from coal by any of the airships have now been completed; and, if so, with what result?

Mr. MONTAGUE: No experiments of the kind mentioned by my hon. Friend have been carried out with airship engines.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Are these experiments still in progress with aeroplane engines?

Mr. MONTAGUE: The question of fuel oil from coal has only reached the stage of laboratory experiments so far. The Ministry is more concerned with petrol, and everything is being done in that direction.

BOMBING PRACTICE, SALISBURY PLAIN.

Colonel HOWARD-BURY (for Viscount LYMINGTON): 37.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air whether In view of the disturbance to the residents which will be caused by the erection of the air target for bombing practice at Suddern Hill, Hampshire, he will cause the target to be removed and erected on a part of Salisbury Plain where the amenities are already spoilt?

Mr. MONTAGUE: The Noble Lord is perhaps under some misapprehension. There is no air bombing target on Suddern Hill nor is there any proposal for the erection of one. If, however, he is referring to the target on Easton Down in Wiltshire, which is about two miles from Suddern Hill, I would mention that the target is located within the War Office prohibited area at Porton. This air bombing range has been in use for the past four years. It may be added that efforts have been made to find a suitable alternative area that can be used for bombing practice by the Royal Air Force Squadrons stationed in the Salisbury Plain area, but without success.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSPORT.

RAILWAY ACCIDENT, FAKENHAM.

Mr. DAY: 39.
asked the Minister of Transport whether the inquiry into the Fakenham, Norfolk, railway accident has now been completed and whether he has received the report on it; and what is the number of inquiries into railway accidents that have been held in camera during the previous 10 years?

The MINISTER of TRANSPORT (Mr. Herbert Morrison): I understand that the inquiry into this railway accident has not yet been concluded, and I, therefore, have not yet received the report. As regards the point raised by my hon. Friend in the last part of his question, it has been the practice to hold inquiries in private in so far as that might be necessary to enable those giving evidence to give it without fear of prejudicing themselves or others in any subsequent criminal proceedings. I am not, however, able to state the exact number of occasions on which evidence has been taken in private.

Mr. DAY: Does my right hon. Friend think the reasons he has given apply to this inquiry?

Mr. MORRISON: I understood that that was so from the report of the proceedings in the Press.

ROAD WORKS (FOREIGN STONE).

Mr. C. WILLIAMS: 40.
asked the Minister of Transport whether he proposes taking any action with regard to the utilisation of foreign broken stone,
in view of the fact that there is an adequate supply at a comparable price already quarried in this country?

Mr. HERBERT MORRISON: I have already informed the hon. Member that every effort is made to secure the use of British materials, including broken stone, on road works in this country. I understand that the importation of foreign road stone is confined to those parts of the country where by reason of freightage charges its use is economically justifiable.

Mr. WILLIAMS: Will the right hon. Gentleman say why foreign stone continues to be used in spite of his efforts?

Mr. MORRISON: I think the hon. Member will find on a comparison of the figures that the amount is relatively small considering the total consumption by local authorities.

Mr. WILLIAMS: But why is the amount really big, according to the figures he has given?

Mr. MORRISON: The figure is very small compared with the total used by local authorities.

Mr. LAWTHER: Could the names of the local authorities which use this stone be published?

Mr. MORRISON: I am not sure whether it would be practicable to publish them, or, if they were published, whether that would help the hon. Member for Torquay (Mr. C. Williams).

LONDON AND NORTH EASTERN RAILWAY (TRACK INSPECTION).

Mr. ARTHUR LAW: 41.
asked the Minister of Transport if he is aware that the London and North Eastern Railway Company have discontinued the practice of having the main-running lines examined on Sundays in the Darlington district; and if, in view of the danger of accidents being caused through this lack of inspection, he will take up this matter with the railway company?

Mr. HERBERT MORRISON: The responsibility for the proper and safe maintenance of the permanent way rests entirely with the railway company, over whom, in regard to this matter, I have no jurisdiction. I have, however, been in communication with the company in the
matter, and am informed by them that ordinary Sunday length inspection in a large portion of the North Eastern Area of their system, which does not, however, include their main line from Shaftholme to Berwick, has been discontinued since early in 1925, and that there has been no change in practice in this area except that the inspection on Sundays of two additional short sections has been discontinued during recent months. The company state that they are advised by their responsible engineer that the present arrangements are adequate, and I see no reason to question their view.

HEAVY MOTOR VEHICLES (MECHANICAL SIGNALS).

Sir GEORGE PENNY: 42.
asked the Minister of Transport whether he will issue regulations making compulsory the use of mechanical and illuminated signalling arms on heavy mercantile and passenger-carrying vehicles?

Mr. HERBERT MORRISON: The Highway Code describes fully the hand signals that drivers should give when intending to stop, slow down or change direction, while stating at the same time that where the appropriate signal can be given effectively by a suitable mechanical or electrical device there is no objection to its use. I do not think I should be at present justified in making the use of such mechanical or electrical devices compulsory in the case of any particular class or description of vehicle.

RAILWAY LEVEL CROSSINGS (ACCIDENTS).

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 46.
asked the Minister of Transport if he will state how many people have already been killed at level crossings this year; and what steps are being taken to eliminate level crossings throughout the country?

Mr. HERBERT MORRISON: During this year nine persons have been reported to have been fatally injured at accidents at public road level crossings of railways, and 14 at occupation and footpath crossings. As regards the second part of the question I have impressed upon local authorities the desirability of taking every favourable opportunity of securing the abolition of level crossings on important roads, and have indicated that I am prepared to enter-
tain applications in suitable cases for grants up to 75 per cent. of the net cost of constructing bridges in lieu thereof.

MOTOR INSURANCE (FOREIGN VISITORS).

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 47.
asked the Minister of Transport what are the arrangements for requiring foreign visitors bringing motor cars to this country for short periods to be insured against third party risks?

Mr. HERBERT MORRISON: The special arrangements for foreign visitors as regards insurance against third party risks will be found set out in Part II of the Motor Vehicles (Third Party Risks) Regulations, 1930, of which I am sending my hon. and gallant Friend a copy.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I am much obliged to my right hon. Friend, but is it the case under the regulations that a foreign motor car must have a third party insurance policy?

Mr. MORRISON: I am speaking from memory, but I fancy foreign visitors' cars must have an insurance in respect of the country from which they come. It is not compulsory to have a policy with a British insurance company. Those regulations are reciprocal. But I am taking risks, because I am speaking from memory.

DARTFORD-PURFLEET TUNNEL.

Mr. MILLS: 48 and 49.
asked the Minister of Transport (1) the present state of negotiations regarding the proposed Dartford-Purfleet tunnel; how many county councils are subscribing towards the cost; the proportions of their contributions compared with the national quota; and whether any county councils are making it a condition of contribution that a proportion of their unemployed shall be employed on the constructional work of the tunnel or its approaches;
(2) how many approach roads have been planned in the counties of Kent and Essex in connection with the proposed Dartford-Purfleet tunnel; and whether it is proposed that any part of the foreshore of Dartford Creek can be dredged, deepened and embanked during the process of construction?

Mr. HERBERT MORRISON: As the answer contains a number of figures I will, with my hon. Friend's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the answer:

The draft agreement between the Kent and Essex County Councils and the Minister is in the final stage of consideration. Tenders submitted for the construction of the pilot tunnel are being examined. Up to the present time four county councils have agreed to contribute to the scheme, namely, Kent, Essex, Middlesex and London. Based on an estimate of £3,500,000 the following table represents the allocation of the cost:

£
Approximate Proportion. Per cent.


Road Fund
2,625,000
75


Kent
250,000
7.2


Essex
250,000
7.2


London County




Council
150,000
4.2


Middlesex
25,000
.7


To be provided from tolls or other sources
200,000
5.7

The London County Council ask that approximately one-third of the unskilled men to be employed be drawn from the administrative county of London. Agreement has been reached with the Kent and Essex County Councils that one quarter of the labour shall be drawn from each of these counties. With regard to the approach roads, I have nothing to add to the information given in my reply to a similar question addressed to me by my hon. Friend on the 15th April last. No provision is made in the tunnel scheme for the improvement of Dartford Creek.

BRITISH LEGATION, LIMA (MATERIALS).

Major COLFOX: 50.
asked the First Commissioner of Works whether British materials are being used for the construction at the present time of the Legation buildings in South America; and seeing that the use of British materials will do much to emphasise the benefits of the recent British Trade Exhibition, whether he will see that only such materials are used?

The FIRST COMMISSIONER of WORKS (Mr. Lansbury): The only Legation building under construction in South America at the present time is at Lima, and in this case British materials and manufactured goods are being supplied to
a substantial extent. As regard" the latter part of the question, circumstances vary to such an extent that each scheme has to be treated according to its needs. For reasons of urgency and cost, both as regards initial construction and subsequent maintenance, it would not be desirable to adopt the rigid demarcation suggested by the hon. and gallant Member.

Major COLFOX: Is it not a fact that in this case the steel construction work is being imported from Luxemburg and not Great Britain?

Mr. LANSBURY: I am not sure about that, but, if the hon. and gallant Member will put down a question, I will ascertain.

Major COLFOX: Will the right hon. Gentleman find out if that is the case, and, if so, will he put a stop to that practice?

Mr. LANSBURY: If the hon. and gallant Gentleman will put a question down, I will send him the information direct.

Mr. MILLS: Will the right hon. Gentleman inquire whether British water is being used to mix with the cement?

Mr. MANDER: Will the right hon. Gentleman, at the same time, try to arrange that only Empire wines and tobacco shall be supplied to hon. Members above the Gangway?

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE.

RUSSIA.

Sir K. WOOD: 52.
asked the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department whether he has now decided to arrange for a commission of inquiry to visit Russia and to examine and report upon trade prospects with this country?

Mr. GILLETT (Secretary, Overseas Trade Department): In view of the State monopoly of foreign trade in the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and of purchases being made according to plan, I have come to the conclusion that a commission of inquiry would not serve the same useful purpose as in other countries.

Sir K. WOOD: Has the hon. Gentleman not considered the value of a personal visit, and what are the difficulties in connection with it?

CANADIAN CATTLE (SHIPMENT).

Mr. EGAN: 57.
asked the President of the Board of Trade, in view of the large numbers of cattle in Canada waiting shipment to England for which there are not enough ships available for transport, if he will bring this matter to the notice of shipowners who own and control the ships lying idle in British ports?

Mr. GILLETT: I am informed that shipowners are not satisfied that the proposals in regard to increased shipments of cattle are such as would justify them in incurring considerable expenditure in fitting out extra ships for the trade. It is understood, however, that discussions are taking place between representatives of the shippers and the shipowners on the subject.

Mr. EGAN: Will the right hon. Gentleman receive representations from the Merseyside organisation which has taken many steps to develop this avenue of employment?

Mr. GILLETT: I have no doubt whatever that my right hon. Friend would be ready to receive any representations on the subject.

TELEPHONE CHARGES (ESSEX COUNTY COUNCIL).

Colonel HOWARD-BURY: 53.
asked the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that the finance, public health, and architectural departments of the Essex County Council, which were situated in different parts of Chelmsford, were connected by telephone and their telephone numbers were inserted in the telephone directory free of charge; but now that these departments are housed in one building these numbers are no longer allowed to be inserted in the directory free, but a charge is to be made; and whether he will look into the matter?

The ASSISTANT POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Viant): As stated by the hon. and gallant Member, the various departments of the county council were formerly served by separate telephone lines with different numbers, while under the new conditions they are served by extensions from a switchboard and all have the same telephone number. The necessity for separate entries
in the Telephone Directory has thus disappeared, and I regret that in these circumstances I cannot allow additional entries without payment of the normal charges. I may add that the rental charge for a number of lines led to a private switchboard is less than that for the same number of lines to different premises.

Colonel HOWARD-BURY: Are not these absurd restrictions and petty charges one of the reasons why, in this country, there are fewer telephones per head of the population than in almost any other country.

Mr. VIANT: I would ask the hon. and gallant Member to appreciate the fact that separate numbers are unnecessary.

Oral Answers to Questions — COAL INDUSTRY.

BEDWAS COLLIERY, MONMOUTHSHIRE.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir FREDERICK HALL: 58.
asked the Secretary for Mines whether he is aware that the 2,700 miners who were employed in the Bedwas Colliery, Monmouthshire, who ceased work on the 18th November, 1930, have declined to return to work on the same terms, customs and conditions as prevail in neighbouring collieries working similar seams; that the men when applying for unemployment benefit were refused by the local representative of the unemployment insurance authorities; that the matter was then referred to a referee in London who granted the unemployment benefit; that several meetings with the men have since taken place at which matters have been agreed, and that subsequently the men have refused to return to work; if he can state what is the present position; and, seeing that all terms have been offered to the miners such as operate in similar collieries, what further action he now intends to take?

Mr. GILLETT: I am informed that further discussions took place last week between the parties and that, on their joint invitation, a representative of the Mines Department continued to attend in a mediatory capacity. While many outstanding matters have been settled there are still certain points on which agreement has not been reached, but I understand that there is reason to hope that
joint discussions will again be resumed shortlry.

Sir F. HALL: Is the hon. Gentleman not aware that this is only a repetition of what has transpired ever since the beginning of December; will he take steps to expedite this matter, and see that these men get back to their work instead of drawing unemployment benefit?

Mr. GILLETT: I understand that negotiations are going to be resumed shortly.

Mr. LAWTHER: Is the hon. Gentleman not aware that a referee generally and usually only makes an award in relation to unemployment benefit when the terms are not similar, but worse, than are operating generally in the district?

OIL EXTRACTION.

Mr. JOHN: 59.
asked the Secretary for Mines whether the Government have now completed the detailed examination as to the possibilities and potentialities of British coal as a source of production of motor fuel and other oils and by-products; and is he now able to submit definite proposals to the House of Commons?

Mr. GILLETT: I regret that I have nothing to add to the answers which have recently been given on this subject, the last of which was given on 21st May in reply to a question by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy).

Mr. C. WILLIAMS: How much longer will the Minister wander along before submitting definite proposals?

SCOTLAND (EDUCATION).

Mr. SCOTT: 60.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give the data from which the report of the Committee of Council on Education, 1930–31, states that 11,346 pupils left school unqualified during 1930–31 from primary schools or primary departments; and what steps are proposed to be taken in future to supply this lack of education?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Mr. Westwood): The figure referred to is compiled from the statistics supplied by education authorities, relating to the attainments of the pupils leaving each school. As to the
latter part of the question, I would refer the hon. Member to the reply my right hon. Friend gave to his similar question on 6th June, 1930; and I may point out that the improvement therein referred to has continued during the past year. The problem of simplifying the curriculum without loss of real educational values continues to engage the close attention of the Department.

Mr. SCOTT: 61.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland the figures on which the statement is arrived at in the report of the Committee of Council on Education for 1929–30 that 60 per cent. of the children leaving day schools have failed in various degrees to reach the normal goal in education; and what is the corresponding percentage for the year 1930–31 and the figures on which the last-mentioned percentage is based?

Mr. WESTWOOD: The figures on which the statement referred to is based are to be found in Tables V (a) and V (b) of the summary statistics, which are appended to the Department's report for 1929–30. The corresponding percentage for the subsequent year, namely, 57.9, is indicated on page 21 of the report for 1930–31 recently published; and the relevant figures are given in Tables V (a) and V (b) of the summary statistics annexed to that report.

Mr. SCOTT: Does the hon. Gentleman realise the serious state of Scottish education if 57 per cent. of the pupils in the primary schools fail to reach the normal goal in education?

Mr. WESTW00D: I also realise that 57.9 is 2.1 per cent. better than it was last year.

Mr. McSHANE: May I ask my hon. Friend what is the normal goal in education?

Mr. SCOTT: 62.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland in how many schools a qualifying examination in reading, writing, arithmetic, history, and geography is held and in how many schools no such examination is held, showing the respective areas of such schools; how many pupils have reached the age of 12, and how many of these were not put for ward for a qualifying examination at that age; and whether steps will be taken to
ensure that all pupils in primary schools or primary departments shall in future be submitted for qualifying examination with uniformity of test, to which attention has been called by His Majesty's chief inspector of schools?

Mr. WESTWOOD: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given on 6th June, 1930, to his question as to the character and number of the schemes for the promotion of scholars who have satisfactorily completed the work proper to the senior division. At the end of the school year 1929–30, there were 70,257 scholars of 12 years of age. Under the approved schemes of promotion, the qualifications of all those who had completed the work of the senior division would necessarily receive appropriate consideration. The schemes of promotion have been framed by the education authorities with due regard to the conditions prevailing in their area, and the operation of the schemes is reviewed from time to time by His Majesty's inspectors of schools. My right hon. Friend does not consider that the institution of a general qualifying examination with uniformity of test is desirable.

RENT RESTRICTIONS ACTS.

Mr. SANDHAM: 63.
asked the Minister of Health from what number of working-class organisations or units the inter departmental committee of inquiry into the Rent Restrictions Acts took evidence?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Miss Lawrence): I am sending my hon. Friend a list of the organisations of this kind from which evidence has, as I understand, been taken.

Mr. THORNE: Did any of the organisations give any evidence in regard to the extraordinary amount of key money that the landlords demanded for these houses?

DOUBLE TAXATION (INTERNATIONAL DISCUSSIONS).

Mr. A. M. SAMUEL: 64.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the projected discussions with the French taxation authorities on the question of double taxation, any steps
are to be taken by His Majesty's Government towards inviting the German taxation authorities to entertain similar discussions, having regard to decisions in the German courts taxing foreign companies holding majority or controlling interests in German companies?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Pethick-Lawrence): If the hon. Member will let me know more precisely the decisions of the German courts to which he refers, I will have the matter examined.

Major COLFOX: Are any further discussions on double taxation at home going on with the Government's Liberal supporters?

GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS (WAGES).

Mr. BROCKWAY: 65.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury what is the lowest payment made for a full week's work to adult civil servants employed in the offices of the Departments of State in London and the provinces, in the Post Office service in London, and the provinces, and in Employment Exchanges in London and the provinces, respectively?

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: I assume that my hon. Friend intends to refer to non-industrial civil servants. I am having inquiry made, on this basis, of the various Departments concerned, and will let my hon. Friend know the result in due course.

Mr. BROCKWAY: Can the Financial Secretary give any indication as to when this information will be available?

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: Not at the present moment.

UNEMPLOYMENT CONVENTION, 1919.

Mr. MANDER: 66.
asked the Minister of Labour what steps the Government are taking in order that the provision of the Unemployment Convention of 1919, which lays down that operations of the various national systems for finding employment for workers by public exchanges shall be co-ordinated by the International Labour Office by agreement with the countries concerned, shall be carried out?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of LABOUR (Mr. Lawson): It has not hitherto been practicable to take any definite steps in this direction. The question of such co-ordination by the International Labour Office is referred to in the report made by the Director recently to the International Labour Conference at Geneva. The hon. Member will find the passage on page 35.

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE, WILLEN-HALL.

Mr. MANDER: 67.
asked the Minister of Labour the position with regard to the dispute in the Willenhall drop forgings industry affecting the firm of the William James Manufacturing Company, Limited?

Mr. LAWSON: A joint meeting was held last week under the auspices of my Department, but no agreement was reached. The services of the Department remain at the disposal of the parties.

Mr. MANDER: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the men in this dispute have been refused unemployment benefit because they have declined to accept employment at from 15s. to 20s. a week less than the standard rate; and will he take action to see that they get it?

Mr. LAWSON: I am not aware of the fact stated by the hon. Member, but, if he will put a question down, I will give him the necessary information.

EX-ENEMY ACTION CLAIMS (COLONIES).

Mr. C. WILLIAMS (for Sir BASIL PETO): 23.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies out of what funds claims for suffering and damage by enemy action, arising in the Colonies, have been paid; whether any of such claims have been met out of funds placed at the disposal of the Sumner Commission; and whether such claims arising in the Colonies have been paid in full?

Mr. LUNN: I have been asked to reply to this question. Claims by Colonial claimants for suffering and damage arising in the Colonies are paid from a fund established by the share in the reparation receipts from Germany allotted to the non-self-governing Colonies and Pro-
tectorates, which fund is administered from the Colonial Office. No such claims have been met from monies voted by the United Kingdom Parliament for the payment of awards recommended by the Sumner Commission. Colonial claimants are paid the full amount awarded on such claims after the prescribed assessment. Colonial claimants desiring to make claims in respect of damage suffered in Turkey are not entitled to direct such claims against the fund administered from the Colonial Office. Claims made by British nationals domiciled in the United Kingdom for damage from enemy action arising in the Colonies would not be for the consideration of the Colonial Office, which is only concerned with claims by British nationals domiciled in the Colonies or Protectorates.

WEST INDIAN COLONIES (STATUS).

Mr. McSHANE (for Dr. MORGAN): 25.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is now in a position to state how many islands in the West Indies have had resolutions proposed by elected members in the local legislative councils asking for a Parliamentary commission of inquiry into their political, economic, educational, and social status; how many of such resolutions have been passed; and whether any considered reply has yet been made by the Secretary of State for the Colonies?

Mr. LUNN: I have been asked to take this question. A resolution was moved in the Legislative Council of Trinidad on the 14th November, 1930, requesting the appointment of a Royal Commission to investigate the question of granting self-government to the inhabitants of the Colony, and asking that a copy should be forwarded to the Secretary of State for the Colonies. My Noble Friend duly received the resolution from the Governor, and in reply to the Governor referred to the fact that it is little more than six years since the present Constitution of the Colony was established, and stated that he is of the opinion that the development of representative institutions in Trinidad, and of the political and economic knowledge and experience which give them their value, is not yet sufficient to justify any constitutional
change. Resolutions relating to constitutional matters have been received from other West Indian Colonies, but these do not bear the description given by my hon. Friend.

Mr. R. A. TAYLOR: Does the present Constitution of Trinidad give opportunity for the opinion of the inhabitants to become effective, or does the majority of the council consist of nominated members?

Mr. LUNN: I should require notice of that question.

TRINIDAD (COCOA INDUSTRY).

Mr. McSHANE (for Dr. MORGAN): 26.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the amending Bill to the Ordinance No. 36 of 1930 in the Crown Colony of Trinidad has yet reached the Colonial Office; what were the reasons for objecting to Ordinance No. 36 of 1930 as originally passed by the island council; and whether the amending Bill was the result of his instructions?

Mr. LUNN: I have been asked to take this question. The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. The Governor was informed that my Noble Friend was unable to approve of the scheme as embodied in Ordinance No. 36 of 1930, as he could not agree to funds which would have to be raised by means of a loan being utilised to pay off private long-term indebtedness or interest thereon. It has been suggested to the Governor that adequate relief to the cocoa industry could be afforded by means of a system of crop advances fixed and controlled by a strong local body, and the Governor has been asked to consider such a scheme and to amend Ordinance No. 36 of 1930 accordingly.

BERMUDA (FRANCHISE).

Mr. McSHANE (for Dr. MORGAN): 27.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether in view of the decision of the legislative council of British Honduras not to extend the franchise to women, as urged by the Secretary of State for the Colonies in an official des patch, it is the intention of the Secretary of State to take any action to bring the constitution of the Colony into line with his recommendations?

Mr. LUNN: I have been asked to take this question. I think that my hon. Friend must have intended to refer to Bermuda since the question of granting the franchise to women has not arisen in British Honduras. As regards Bermuda, I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply of the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies to the hon. Member for the English Universities (Miss Rathbone) on the 2nd June.

STANDARDS OF LABOUR.

Major BRAITHWAITE: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to preserve the standards of hours of work, wages and other conditions of labour in the United Kingdom from being put in jeopardy, and for that purpose to forbid, control or restrict the importation into the United Kingdom of goods in competition with which Home-produced articles, commodities, or products of a like kind can only be sold by increasing hours of work and/or reducing wages and/or worsening the conditions of labour in the United Kingdom.
In asking leave to introduce this Bill, I want hon. Members on the Government side of the House to carry their minds back to the Socialist party conference which took place at Birmingham in 1928. The Prime Minister then said:
Where there are glaring examples of sweated goods produced under conditions against which British people cannot compete without lowering their standard of living, the remedy is not Safeguarding, but prohibiting the entry of such goods.
That is a statement with which I am in entire agreement. Whatever our views on this side of the House may be about Safeguarding or Protection, or whatever you like to call it, there are certain definite circumstances in which no partial exclusion of foreign goods can be In any way satisfactory. The Prime Minister used the term "sweated goods." I find it too difficult to determine what are sweated goods in a foreign country to be able to base a proper judgment on such a vague and unsatisfactory adjective in connection with a Measure of such importance as this. In my opinion, we ought to have regard to the standards that we have arrived at as the irreducible minima and to do everything that we possibly can to maintain them. The leader of the Liberal Party recently said that the standards of British labour were the best in the world. Everyone agrees with that statement, but I hope
we are going to make up our minds not to go back on the position that we have won, but rather to stand and consolidate it. The important point in the Prime Minister's utterance was the emphasis that he laid, not upon conditions abroad, which are, of course, beyond our control, but upon conditions in this country, and the real burden of his statement of policy was that the British people cannot compete with imports from abroad without lowering their standard of living.
The purpose of the Bill is to provide a short and simple machinery for enabling rapid decisions to be taken. I believe too long a time elapses and too much harm is done because our legislation is so cumbersome. The Bill does not attempt to define sweated goods or standards of labour or living. It is based upon the assumption that, provided the facts can be given in a satisfactory way to the House of Commons, it will look on them sympatheticly and will be able to act rapidly, so that there shall no longer be the danger of large numbers of unemployed coming into our industries by reason of these importations, and we shall be able to act with such expediency as to be able to afford our people steady employment.
It is proposed in the Bill that a substantial industry—and for the purpose of proving its substantiality, I have fixed a figure of not fewer than 1,000 persons employed—can apply to the President of the Board of Trade, who will set up a committee consisting of a judge of the High Court and an employer and an employé in the industry concerned. Their investigation will not be for the purpose of making recommendations, but merely of putting forward the facts in connection with the industry. They will have power to call all the necessary evidence that they may require. They will not be able to make any definite recommendations, but simply to state the facts that they find out, and, if they find that in a particular industry British labour can only compete by lowering its wages, lengthening the hours of labour, or generally worsening social conditions, the President of the Board of Trade on receiving such evidence, shall submit it to the House of Commons, whereupon it will be competent for any
Member of the House to move the prohibition, regulation or control of that particular class of imports. It is left to the House of Commons to say exactly what line it proposes to take in each case and, with all these facts before it, it ought to be able to make a very quick decision. Having made it, if it is decided to, restrict, or control, or prohibit a particular class of imports, that condition shall be imposed upon those imports until the House shall decide that it can be removed. In my view, a Resolution in this House on this subject should be left to a free vote of the House. It is not a question of party politics, and I do not put this forward in any partisan view, but as something which is necessary to be done for the resuscitation of British industry.
The procedure of the House of Commons provides ample scope for the ventilation of matters of opinion and for the discussion of points of policy, and all that we require from this Committee to be set up by the President of the Board of Trade are the facts for our guidance. The Prime Minister has committed his party to the prohibition of imports of the class that I suggest and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) has also committed his party in a very large way on that line. We on these benches have always held that the standard of British labour ought to be preserved by all possible means. In this small Measure, I have endeavoured to lay before the House a scheme, free of legal and technical complications, which preserves to the House the full right to decide what action shall be taken after the facts have been investigated. In order to preserve the authority of the Chancellor of the Exchequer over matters of taxation, articles that are subject to Customs and Excise Duties are specifically excluded.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: What does the Leader of the Conservative party think of this?

Major BRAITHWAITE: Therefore, there can be no reason why, if Members of the House are honest in their protestation of a desire to maintain the standard of living, they should not grant permission for the Bill to be introduced. There may be many details in the work-
ing of a scheme like this which require much modification and for such modification, there should be ample time if the Bill is allowed to go forward. I ask Members of all parties, at this serious time in the industrial life of our country, to let us prevent the dumping of enormous amounts of goods which are produced under conditions with which we have no hope of competing, and to give again to our industries that chance to rebuild themselves and bring back a full measure of employment.

Sir BEN TURNER: rose—

Mr. SPEAKER: Does the hon. Gentleman rise to oppose the introduction of the Bill?

Sir B. TURNER: Is it in order to ask a question?

Mr. SPEAKER: Not now.

Mr. RHYS DAVIES: I rise to oppose the Motion. It is very interesting to hear from the hon. and gallant Gentleman that he is honest in his intentions with regard to this Measure. It is very interesting, in fact, to see any Motion coming from those benches in favour of better standards of living for the workers. This Bill seeks to safeguard the standard of living of working people in this country by the restriction of certain imports. We have apparently to determine wages and hours of labour consequent upon the restriction of certain imports into this country of sweated goods. That is his argument. He makes the further statement that a country like ours can maintain its present standard of living for the working people only if we adopt his proposal, but strangely enough, many other countries have already adopted the same proposal that he is now making, and the standard of living of the working people of those countries is lower than it is here at the moment. Consequently, I ask the House of Commons to reject this proposal. He also makes the statement that there is going to be very simple machinery set up to decide what are sweated goods. I should like to find out what is that simple machinery. Then we are to get at the facts! I should like to ask the hon. and gallant Gentleman whether he is not aware that goods produced in the United States of America, so I am informed, are sold in the markets of this country at a
much cheaper rate than they could be produced at home, whereas the wages in the United States of America are 75 per cent. higher than they are here? Consequently, the hon. and gallant Member cannot have it both ways. After all, this is Protection in another form. It is simply a subtle way of attempting to gain the votes of the working people, I presume, for the Tory party. This proposal has been called safeguarding, and it has been called, on occasions, insulation, and now we are going to term it the restriction of imports.
I made an inquiry some time ago into the wages and conditions of safeguarded industries of this country, and I was astonished to find that what was hoped to be done by the propounders of the theory of the safeguarding of industry had completely failed. In the cutlery trade of Sheffield I found that after four or five years of Safeguarding—and the present proposal would be another means of Safeguarding—the wages for females in that safeguarded trade were 7s. weekly for a girl of 14, and for a woman of 21 years of age the maximum wage was 23s. a week. That is what Safeguarding has done. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] There is something very much deeper behind the question of standards of life of our working people than either Free Trade or tariffs or restriction of imports or anything of that kind. It depends very often upon how well organised they are in their trade unions. It is possible to see the working people of a country sweated by their employers, whether you have Free Trade or tariffs or restriction of imports. Consequently, the Labour party take another point of view. The way we should handle this problem is not by this means. We should utilise the machinery of the International Labour Organisation. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] Is there any hon.

Member who would stand up in the House of Commons at any time to argue that this country should withdraw from affiliation with the International Labour Office? I should like to see what would happen to him at the next election if he did so.

It is obvious that the Motion we are discussing cannot help the unemployed. That can be proved beyond doubt. I can give the hon. and gallant Member the authority now. The other day I met a social worker in New York, and I was informed that while there are tariffs and restriction of imports in America as strictly enforced as in any country, there are at least half a million unemployed people in the city of New York now being fed and housed at the expense of charitable organisations. I say, therefore, that the means proposed by the hon. and gallant Gentleman to solve this problem will not avail us. It is rather delightful sometimes to hear a Member of the Opposition interpreting a Labour party policy, and, sometimes, Liberal party policy too. It shows, at any rate, some knowledge of our affairs. I sincerely trust that the House of Commons will have nothing to do with this proposal, and I hope the House will vote it down unanimously.

Question put,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to preserve the standards of hours of work, wages and other conditions of labour in the United Kingdom from being put in jeopardy, and for that purpose to forbid, control, or restrict the importation into the United Kingdom of goods in competition with which home-produced articles, commodities, or products of a like kind can only be sold by increasing hours of work and/or reducing wages and/or worsening the conditions of labour in the United Kingdom.

The House divided: Ayes, 164: Noes, 129.

Division No. 314.]
AYES.
[3.57 p.m.


Albery, Irving James
Brooke, W.
Cobb, Sir Cyril


Allen, U.-Col. Sir William (Armagh)
Brown, C W. E. (Notts. Mansfield)
Cocks, Frederick Seymour


Alpass, J. H.
Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)
Cohen, Major J. Brunei


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Buchan, John
Colfox, Major William Philip


Atholl, Duchess of
Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Colville, Major D. J.


Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley)
Buchanan, G.
Cooper, A. Duff


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley (Bewdley)
Bullock, Captain Malcolm
Cove, William G.


Beckett, John (Camberwell, P[...]ckham)
Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)


Bennett, William (Batteries, South)
Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Cunliffe- Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip


Betterton, Sir Henry B.
Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir. J. A. (Birm., W.)
Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)


Boothby, R. J. G.
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)
Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Chapman, Sir S.
Day, Harry


Bowyer, Captain Sir George E. W.
Christie, J. A.
Dug dale, Capt. T. L.


Braithwaite, Major A. N.
Church, Major A. G.
Eden, Captain Anthony


Broadbent, Colonel J.
Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer
Edge, Sir William


Brockway, A. Fenner
Clydesdale, Marquess of
Elliot, Major walter E.


Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)
Llewellin, Major J. J.
Salmon, Major I.


Everard, W. Lindsay
McConnell, Sir Joseph
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Fal[...]e, Sir Bertram G.
McElwee, A.
Samuel, H. walter (Swansea, West)


Ferguson, Sir John
McEntee, V. L.
Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart


Ford, Sir P. J.
McGovern, J. (Glasgow, Shettleston)
Sandham, E.


Galbraith, J. F. W.
McShane, John James
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis


Ganzonl, Sir John
Marcus, M.
Shepperson, Sir Ernest Whittome


Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Margesson, Captain H. D.
Shillaker, J. F.


Glyn, Major R. G. C.
Marjoribanks, Edward
Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)


Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Markham, S. F.
Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)


Greaves-Lord, Sir walter
Matters, L. W.
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)


Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John
Maxton, James
Smith, Tom (Pontefract)


Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Meller, R. J.
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Gunston, Captain D. w.
Messer, Fred
Smithers, Waldron


Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Milner, Major J.
Southby, Commander A. R. J.


Hall, Capt. W. G. (Portsmouth, C.)
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B.
Spender-Clay, Colonel H.


Harbord, A.
Morrison, W. S. (Glos., Cirencester)
Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur


Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Mort, D. L.
Stephen, Campbell


Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)
Muff, G.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral M. F.


Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.
Muggeridge, H. T.
Taylor R. A. (Lincoln)


Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Muirhead, A. J.
Taylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S. W.)


Hurd, Percy A.
Nicholson, O. (Westminster)
Thompson, Luke


Hurst, Sir Gerald B.
Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G.(Ptrsf'ld)
Thomson, Sir F.


Hutchison, Maj.-Gen. Sir R.
Oman, Sir Charles William C.
Thurtle, Ernest


Inskip, Sir Thomas
O'Neill, Sir H.
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Jones, Llewellyn., F.
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William
Turner, Sir Ben


Jowitt, Rt. Hon. F. W.
Peake, Captain Osbert
Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon


Kennedy, Rt. Hon. Thomas
Penny, Sir George
Wallace, Capt. D. E. (Hornsey)


Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert


Kinley, J.
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)
Warrender, Sir Victor


Kirkwood, D.
Pownall, Sir Assheton
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Lamb, Sir J. Q.
Pybus, Percy John
Wayland, Sir William A.


Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.
Quibell, D. J. K.
Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)


Lang, Gordon
Reid, David D. (County Down)
Wise, E. F.


Lathan, G. (Sheffield, Park)
Reynolds, Col. Sir James
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Lawrie, Hugh Hartley (Stalybridge)
Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)
Wright, Brig.-Gen. W. D. (Tavist'k)


Lee, Frank (Derby, N. E.)
Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton


Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern)
Rosbotham, D. S. T.



Leighton, Major B. E. P
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Lewis, Oswald (Colchester)
Russell, Richard John (Eddisbury)
Mr. Womersley and Mr. Lockwood.


NOES.


Adamson, w. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Gray, Milner
Perry, S. F.


Ammon, Charles George
Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Pole, Major D. G.


Arnott, John
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Potts, John S.


Ayles, walter
Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)
Ramsay, T. B. Wilson


Barnes, Alfred John
Hardie, David (Rutherglen)
Rathbone, Eleanor


Barr, James
Haycock, A. W.
Raynes, W. R.


Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)
Hayes, John Henry
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)


Bondfield, Rt. Hon. Margaret
Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)
Riley, Ben (Dewsbury)


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Henderson, Arthur, Junr. (Cardiff, S.)
Romeril, H. G.


Broad, Francis Alfred
Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow)
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Bromfield, William
Harriotts, J.
Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)


Bromley, J.
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Sawyer, G. F.


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)
Sexton, Sir James


Burgess, F. G.
Jenkins, Sir William
Shield, George William


Buxton, C. R. (Yorks. W. R. Elland)
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Cape, Thomas
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Simmons, C. J.


Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S. W.)
Jones, Rt. Hon Leif (Camborne)
Simon, E. D. (Manch'ter, Withington)


Chater, Daniel
Law, Albert (Bolton)
Sinclair, Sir A. (Caithness)


Clarke, J. S.
Lawson, John James
Sinkinson, George


Cluse, W. S.
Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle)
Sitch, Charles H.


Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Leach, W.
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)


Daggar, George
Lloyd, C. Ellis
Smith, Lees-, Rt. Hon. H. B. (Keighley)


Dalton, Hugh
Longbottom, A. W.
Smith, Rennle (Penistone)


Davies, D. L. (Pontypridd)
Lovat-Fraser, J. A.
Smith, W. R. (Norwich)


Denman, Hon. R. D.
Lunn, William
Stamford, Thomas W.


Duncan, Charles
Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)
Sullivan, J.


Ede, James Chuter
MacLaren, Andrew
Sutton, J. E.


Edmunds, J. E.
Mander, Geoffrey le M.
Thorne, W. (West Ham, plaistow)


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Manning, E. L.
Tillett, Ben


Edwards, E. (Morpeth)
Mansfield, W.
Tinker, John Joseph


Egan, W. H.
Marshall, Fred
Toole, Joseph


Elmley, Viscount
Mills, J. E.
Tout, W. J.


Foot, Isaac
Montague, Frederick
Townend, A. E.


Freeman, Peter
Murnin, Hugh
Vaughan, David


George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Nathan, Major H. L.
Wallace, H. W.


George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesea)
Naylor, T. E.
Watson, W. M, (Dunfermline)


Gill, T. H.
Noel-Buxton, Baroness (Norfolk, N.)
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Joslah


Gillett, George M.
Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley)
Welsh, James (Palsley)


Glassey, A. E.
Paling, Willfrid
Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)


Gould, F.
Palmer, E. T.
Whiteley, William (Blaydon)


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)
Wilson, J. (Oldham)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.-


Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)
Mr. Benson and Mr. Rhys Davies.


Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)
Young, R. S. (lslington, North)

Bill ordered to be brought in by Major Braithwaite, Mr. Womersley, Mr. Gibson, Sir Nicholas Grattan-Doyle, Sir George Hamilton, Lieut.-Colonel Gault, Mr. Lookwood, Mr. Otho Nicholson, Lieut.-Colonel Heneage, Mr. Remer, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Frederick Hall, and Sir Ernest Shepperson.

STANDARDS OF LABOUR BILL,

"to preserve the standards of hours of work, wages and other conditions of labour in the United Kingdom from being put in jeopardy, and for that purpose to forbid, control, or restrict the importation into the United Kingdom of goods in competition with which Home-produced articles, commodities, or products of a like kind can only be sold by increasing hours of work, reducing wages, or worsening the conditions of labour in the United Kingdom," presented accordingly, and read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 174.]

CHAIRMEN'S PANEL.

Mr. William Nicholson reported from the Chairmen's Panel; That they had appointed Mr. James Brown to act as Chairman of the Standing Committee on Scottish Bills (in respect of the Adoption of Children (Scotland) Bill).

Report to lie upon the Table.

WILLS AND INTESTACIES (FAMILY MAINTENANCE) BILL.

Reported, without Amendment, from the Joint Committee.

Special Report from the Joint Committee brought up, and read.

Report and Special Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).

SCOTTISH STANDING COMMITTEE.

Mr. William Nicholson reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had discharged the following Member from the Standing Committee on Scottish Bills (added in respect of the Adoption
of Children (Scotland) Bill): Mr. Arnott; and had appointed in substitution: Miss Lawrence.

Report to lie upon the Table.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.

That they have agreed to,—

Ventnor Urban District Council Bill,

London, Midland and Scottish Railway Bill, with Amendments.

Orders of the Day — FINANCE [EXPENSES OF COMMISSIONERS OF INLAND REVENUE].

Resolution reported,
That it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of any expenses incurred by the Commissioners of Inland Revenue or remuneration payable in connection with any valuation of land for the purposes of any tax on land value charged under any Act of the present Session relating to finance.

Resolution read a Second time.

Captain BOURNE: I beg to move, in line 1, after the word "payment," to insert the words:
of a sum not exceeding four hundred thou-sand pounds in the financial year nineteen hundred and thirty-one-thirty-two.
I have chosen this sum, because in his original speech on the Financial Resolution, the Chancellor of the Exchequer estimated that the total expenditure of the valuation in the current financial year would be somewhere between £300,000 and £400,000, and I thought it only right to give him the extreme limit of the Estimate. I must admit that I am extremely puzzled as to how the right hon. Gentleman arrived at this figure, and at the figure of the total amount of expenditure, somewhere between £1,000,000 and £1,500,000. If we look at the records of the previous Land Tax, we get some idea as to what the valuation cost in 1910–15. It took a great deal longer than the Chancellor has estimated on the present occasion, because under this Bill he proposes to impose his tax in 1934, and he stated in the course of his preliminary observations on the Financial Resolution that the total number of land units which would come into this scheme was somewhere between 10,000,000 and 12,000,000.
It is interesting to observe that in 1909–10 they spent a rather less sum than this. The first valuation started in August, 1910, and I see that this time the Chancellor proposes to start somewhere about September of this year. At the end of the financial year 1911, the number of valuations made was 298,000 odd, while the number of hereditaments valued was 396,000. I must admit that I am a little puzzled at the discrepancy. The total
number of people employed was 1,428, at a cost of about £130,000 for salaries. This Resolution, of course, goes a good deal beyond that. The cost was £130,000, but it rose very rapidly the next year to £282,000, and for the two subsequent years it was over £400,000. Then it began to drop until the total was well over £2,000,000. The total number of hereditaments valued was 10,000,000, which was less than the Chancellor estimates, and the total number of valuations made was 7,000,000. I do not know whether it makes any difference to the estimate, but, after all, this is the only chance we shall probably get under the time-table of discussing the cost of the valuation.
I do not know on what basis the Chancellor of the Exchequer is making his estimate, because he has set out in Clause 8 a rather complicated arrangement on which the valuation is based. It is not a very easy form of valuation to make, and, therefore, presumably, it is necessary to look rather carefully at each hereditament and consider what would be the position if the building which now happens to be upon it is assumed to be torn up and removed bodily as by some genii. I do not think that even a very able expert valuer would be able to go down a whole street and say, "These are similar houses. I value No. 1 at such a figure, and make the site value the same for the others." I do not think that the valuation is going to be made easier after the statement which the Chancellor of the Exchequer made last night in regard to a Schedule A valuation. It is going, somehow, to be linked up with the site value valuation. It seems to me that the work will be somewhat delayed. Therefore, it would be very interesting to hear from the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade, when he replies on behalf of the Government, exactly on what estimate the cost is based, what the Chancellor of the Exchequer thought he could do, and would have to do, if he is to get through the work by 1934. A very great deal of valuation will be needed in the current financial year, and far more than the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) did in the previous valuation, if the whole work is to be completed in the time mentioned.
Tins Estimate gives no information to the House. It is one of those undesirable Financial Resolutions to which we are getting so accustomed in this House, where a blank cheque is given to the Government. We have no control over the total expenditure. This is a particularly bad Resolution, and I want to know from the right hon. Gentleman whether, in point of fact, any very careful estimate has been made of the number of valuations that will be required and the number of trained valuers who are available, because Mr. Harper, in giving evidence in 1920 before the Commission on the Land Taxes, stated categorically that trained valuers are absolutely essential for the work. I want to know whether the right hon. Gentleman thinks he can spend even the sum up to the limit I am suggesting in this Amendment in the course of the present financial year. I think myself it is doubtful whether he can spend this sum. If not, the Government ought to make no objection to this Amendment-After all, it is their own estimate, and I do not know why Governments, and this Government especially, so persistently refuse to accept a limitation on a Financial Resolution which is, in point of fact, their own estimate of the expenditure.
I quite admit that to me, or to any Member of the Opposition who has not accurate details on which the estimate is based, it would be very difficult to put down a proper limitation to a Resolution of this kind, but we must presume that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, when he was speaking in this House a month or so ago, was speaking after careful consideration of the number of people who were available and the number of valuations he hoped to make in the course of the current financial year, and, therefore, was giving an approximate figure, although I admit a somewhat elastic estimate, of what he could possibly spend between now and 31st March. I do not know whether he hopes to get the total valuations through at a rather lower cost than was the case in 1910–15 on the assumption that there are a certain number of land units which will not need to be valued either in cases where the tax will be obviously below the 10s. exemption, or else the cultivation value is equal to the site value, and does he not con-
sider that is bound to reduce the expenditure very largely? I do not know whether that is in his mind, but I do feel that the House is entitled to a very full explanation as to the costs. I admit that we could not, on this occasion, ask him what it would yield, but it seems to me it will not be a very heavy amount, at any rate, in the early stages; but we are entitled to know what burden will be put upon the taxpayers, and also whether a Supplementary Estimate will be necessary in the event of this Bill being passed.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir A. LAMBERT WARD: I beg to second the Amendment.
I have been consistently opposed to the proposals on which the Resolution is based, and therefore it is not inconsistent on my part to support the Amendment. The Debates that we have had on the Bill have made it abundantly clear beyond all question that the figure given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer of the expenditure which will be incurred in the valuations has been hopelessly under-estimated. The exemptions which the right hon. Gentleman has promised on Clause 19, instead of reducing the expenditure will tend to increase it. Normally, without those exemptions, it would be easy to value a great many of the units, but the question will now arise whether or not those units are to be exempt, and that will undoubtedly mean more work and more expenditure. We have another reason for thinking that the estimate of the Chancellor of the Exchequer is too low, and that is the experience we had in connection with the valuations which took place under the Act of 1910. In the four years during which those valuations were in progress a sum of approximately £5,000,000 was expended. The Chancellor of the Exchequer now estimates that the expenditure on the valuations will amount at the utmost to £1,500,000.
It is estimated that under the Bill there will have to be valued units numbering, approximately, 10,000,000. Does anyone seriously imagine that the average cost of valuing those units will be no more than half-a-crown? That estimate will be found to be much too low. I am of opinion that the average cost will be much more in the neighbourhood of £l per unit, which will mean
an expenditure not of £1,500,000, but of £10,000,000, or more than six times the sum that the Chancellor of the Exchequer estimates. It is with a view of avoiding excessive expenditure during the early years of the valuation that the Amendment has been moved to restrict the expenditure during the first year to a sum not exceeding £400,000. To do otherwise than to put a limit on the expenditure would be to give a blank cheque to the Government. In these times of financial stress it is a mistake to give a blank cheque to any Government, especially a Labour Government. Therefore, with a view of restricting expenditure during the first year of the valuation, I second the Amendment.

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. William Graham): The hon. and gallant Members who have moved and seconded the Amendment have made reference to the cost of the valuation and to the estimates given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer at an earlier stage in our proceedings. The House will remember that when the Committee stage was reached the Resolution was passed under the time-table, as I prefer to call it, and there was no discussion. Accordingly, there can be no complaint that rather fuller details should be supplied at the present time. The Amendment seeks to restrict the expenditure for the purposes of the valuation and other purposes to what hon. Members conceive to be necessary within the present financial year. On that, I think it will be in order to refer to the costs which will be involved, because what falls within the present financial year is really part of a wider and longer plan.
The hon. and gallant Member who moved the Amendment took exception to the general form of the Resolution, but there is nothing new in it as regards Financial Resolutions in this House. No doubt if we were very strict it would be better that Financial Resolutions should specify the precise sums which are to be expended, but very often that is not practical politics. In any case, there is this reply, for what it is worth, that hon. Members in all parts of the House have an apportunity in succeeding years, when the Estimates for this or that Department are presented, of raising questions on the sums proposed, and, if they so desire, of voting against the Estimates. That is the protection that is
normally afforded. Let us observe what is really involved in this proposition. It has been estimated that the valuation will cost at least £1,000,000 and may cost as much as £1,500,000. Part of that outlay which will fall within the present financial year will be something between £300,000 and £400,000. On what form of service does that outlay rest? Clearly, the greater part of the expenditure will relate to the valuation itself.
No one suggests that an outlay of this kind should fall on other than public funds. It is estimated that the services of at least 2,000 additional people will be required for the task. Hon. Members have already been informed that the staff of the Inland Revenue Department is closely approximated to current needs, and certainly the staff of the Valuation Office, and it would be quite impossible and utterly out of the question to embark upon an effort of this kind with the existing machinery. As regards the additional staff of 2,000 people, it is estimated that approximately one-half will be professional and the other half will be clerical staff. Of the professional servants for this purpose many will require considerable technical and other skill. All that staff will be recruited on a temporary basis. I do not think it is possible to establish any kind of effective comparison between what is now proposed and the circumstances that followed the Act of 1909–10.
We have borne carefully in mind the classes of exemption under the Bill and I can only say that, in looking to the two years over which the valuation will take place and taking everything into account, as far as we can estimate at the present time, and it is by no means an easy matter, we believe that an additional staff so recruited of 2,000 people will be sufficient for the purpose. There are, of course, certain other duties which have to be undertaken. For example, under the Bill certain particulars have to be obtained regarding the instruments relating to the land under, I think, Clause 23. Then there is the question of the referees to whom people who are dissatisfied with their valuations may go. The referees will be appointed under Section 33 of the Finance Act, 1909–10. These are additional services. There is also the service of office accommodation, and there will be the provision of maps and many other things, over the whole
field. That is the kind of expenditure we envisage.
The Amendment amounts to this, that hon. Members opposite would place a limit on the expenditure of £400,000. That might involve us in very great difficulties. If by any chance that sum were exceeded, the task of valuation might be held up while we came back to Parliament for an additional sum, and I submit that that is not really practical politics in this connection. Hon. Members will have adequate opportunity on the Estimates in succeeding years of discussing the precise amounts which are provided for this purpose. We have given the estimate in the best possible form at this stage, and I am afraid that for these reasons we must ask the House to reject the Amendment.

Captain BOURNE: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer my question? Will this necessitate a Supplementary Estimate in this financial year?

Lord ERSKINE: The remarks of the President of the Board of Trade have not in any way convinced me that the Amendment should not be accepted. The right hon. Gentleman began his speech by saying that every party at one time or another sins against the light in bringing forward this kind of Resolution. I have no doubt that precedents can be adduced with regard to various occasions showing that that is so. Nevertheless, two wrongs do not make a right. It is proper that the Opposition to-day should point out that we are once again giving to the Government a blank cheque and that there should be some limit on what the Government can spend on these particular services. The House of Commons originally was the guardian of the taxpayers against the Government of the Crown, but of late years it seems to have become an engine of taxation, driven hard and every year driven faster by the officers of the Crown who sit here as Ministers. For that reason, there is a great deal of force in the remarks of the hon. and gallant Member for Oxford (Captain Bourne) that we should put a limit of £400,000 this year upon this particular service, all the more so because I understood the President of the Board of Trade to say that he did not believe that this particu-
lar sum or more than this particular sum of £400,000 would be spent this year. When the right hon. Gentleman said that we should have a chance of discussing how this money has been spent on the Estimates each year he was really, in a way, misleading the House, because when we come to discuss the Estimates the money will have been spent, we shall be discussing the matter after a good deal of the money has been spent on the valuations.
There is one other question I desire to ask. There is an impression among valuers throughout the country—probably it is totally incorrect, and I have no doubt the right hon. Gentleman will put me right—that many of those who will be employed on this service will become established civil servants, with a right to pension. I do not think this is true, but it would be appropriate on this Financial Resolution if the Government would say whether we are going to create a new staff of permanent civil servants who are to qualify for pension in the ordinary way. If it is not so, then I have no doubt that the remarks of whoever replies for the Government will come to the ears of those who are thinking that they may be engaged and become established civil servants as a result of this valuation.
The House should remember, when we are finding this unnamed sum for this valuation, that it is not the only cost. It may be true that it is the only cost which will fall upon the taxpayer, but there will be a great many appeals and private owners of property will have to go to solicitors and enter into all sorts of legal expenses, it may be true to say that the Government are not going to spend more than from £1,500,000 to £2,000,000, but, if you take the expenditure to which private persons will be put into consideration, it is going to cost a great deal more than that. In 1909 many hundreds of thousands of pounds were spent by private owners of property in getting advice and in appealing against their valuation. Therefore, the country is not only spending this £1,500,000, but it is also spending the amount of money which private owners will have to spend on legal advice, which otherwise they might have put into industry or the purchase of goods, thereby finding work for men who are now un-
employed. We cannot say that the only cost of this valuation is the cost to the Government. I hope the House will accept the Amendment. It is not one which really restricts the Government. The President of the Board of Trade has said that he does not think they will spend more than £400,000 in the present financial year, but, if they do, they can always come to the House—I presume it will be sitting in the autumn—and ask for more money. Bather than give a blank cheque to this very expensive Government, I hope the House will accept the Amendment.

Mr. ARTHUR MICHAEL SAMUEL: I desire to support the Amendment. We should pin down the Government to this figure of £400,000. I listened very carefully to every word which the President of the Board of Trade has said. He gave us many facts but no justification for refusing to accept the figure mentioned in a previous Debate. I am totally against giving a blank cheque to any Government, and we should not allow this Resolution to go through without putting some figure in. Let us do a simple sum in arithmetic and pin the Government down to the figure of the likely expenditure. I do not think that the amount which the right hon. Gentleman has in mind is likely to be the limit of the expenditure by any means. That is the reason why we are anxious to see that it shall not exceed the figure mentioned by the Chancellor of the Exchequer on a previous occasion. The President of the Board of Trade has said that the valuation may cost £1,500,000 or £2,000,000, and that £400,000 will be enough for the present financial year. He has told us the number of valuers that will be required. They will not be ordinary second-class clerks, or first-class clerks, some of them will be highly-skilled expert men, who will have to be paid large fees; and on the top of that he told us that there will have to be referees and that the existing machinery is inadequate to deal with this valuation.
When the right hon. Gentleman comes down with a request for this blank cheque to-day we at once make, the inquiry as to how he is going to make the figure mentioned in the Financial Memorandum last for three years. The existing valuing machinery is inadequate for men will be
required not only for every valuation but for every exemption. You cannot exempt until you have valued. It is not enough to say that a large body of taxpayers will be excluded if their liability is less than 10s. because you will have to value their property before you can exempt them. There are between 10,000,000 and 12,000,000 hereditaments to value, and that mere fact alone shows how necessary it is to nail down the Government to the figure proposed by the Amendment. There are, as I say, from 10,000,000 to 12,000,000 hereditaments in this country and you cannot carry on all the correspondence, the examination of documents and provide the paper, postage stamps, clerical work, office accommodation, printing and travelling expenses for 3s. per hereditament.
The financial statement gives a total of £1,500,000 for three years. I do not wish to impugn the veracity of the President of the Board of Trade but I do not believe those figures for a moment. The total cost of this valuation in my opinion will be nearer £5,000,000 or £6,000,000 than £1,500,000. Therefore when the Government come down and ask for a blank cheque I think it is very necessary that we should fix a limit to the expenditure. There will be appeals, there are bound to be appeals. The large number of men who hold small properties will come to look upon this Bill with bitter hostility and will consider that a great injustice is being done to them. They will fight tooth and nail against any valuation which they consider unjust and a violation of the principles of freehold. Not only will the expense of these appeals fall upon those who make them but the Treasury will have to bear the costs in opposing the appeals and they will be in addition to the costs of the actual valuation. For these reasons, I think the cost of the valuation will be much nearer £5,000,000 or £6,000,000 to the Treasury, perhaps as much as the tax yields. I do not for a moment believe that it will be anything like £1,500,000 as stated in the Financial Memorandum. Finally I think we are bound to pin the Government down to the figure that they themselves put in and not allow them to go beyond it.

Mr. LEIF JONES: I have considerable sympathy with the effort of the Opposition to place a financial limit to the ex-
penditure to be incurred under this Financial Resolution. I have watched with increasing regret the lifting of the check on expenditure by a limit in the Financial Resolution. In my opinion, it is withdrawing from the House some part of its financial control. I am tempted to vote for the second Amendment on the Order Paper which limits the total expenditure to £2,000,000. The present Amendment says that not more than £400,000 shall be spent in the present financial year. In regard to the expenditure of the present financial year this House will have full control, because a Supplementary Estimate, must be brought in by the Government, and they will have to state the amount they propose to spend by 31st March next. We shall have an opportunity of debating it. But it is rather a doubtful expedient to tell the Government that they must not go too fast in their work. I want the valuation to be made as quickly as possible and, therefore, if the Government can tell me that they can spend the money within the present financial year, I am willing to grant the money that they can spend, but I am not ready to grant them money which they cannot spend.
I shall not vote for the present Amendment, but, unless the Government can show good reasons against the second Amendment, I am inclined to vote in favour of placing some limit on the expenditure in coming years. I think we should get some estimate of the expenditure which the House and the country will have to face. That is not beyond the capacity of the Government; they should be able to bell us fairly accurately what the expenditure will be. Unless they do so, they will be driven to bring in a further Estimate authorising further expenditure. We ought to know how far we can go. I shall await the Supplementary Estimate before opposing the Government in regard to this matter, because I want them to get on with their valuation, but I shall support a proposal to place a limit on the amount to be spent on the valuation in coming years.

Mr. LOCKWOOD: I support the Amendment. The President of the Board of Trade and the Solicitor-General in their observations on this Bill have been very vague. In his statement to-day,
the President of the Board of Trade spoke at some length, but he gave us nothing more than generalities; he gave us no details. With regard to the Solicitor-General, I have been waiting for an opportunity of referring to his statement that this valuation can be accomplished by the addition of 2,000 employés in the Valuation Department at an expense of from £1,000,000 to £1,500,000. The President of the Board of Trade says that, in considering this matter, we should not go to the valuations made under the Finance Act of 1909–10, but, if we are not to take into consideration the facts which appertain to that valuation, what are we to take into account? We must go to the experience of previous years. I had a large experience of the 1909–10 Act and of the work which was entailed by the valuations under it.
It is preposterous to say, either that it can be accomplished by an additional staff of 2,000, or that it can be accomplished within the time or within the expenditure stated. It has been suggested that the Department will be able to utilise the present staff. Those of us who have had business connections with the Department, know that at the moment it is occupied fully with valuations which arise on probate and so forth. All the valuations under this Bill will have to be separate and independent valuations made as at a particular time. I remember perfectly well that when the valuation was made under the 1909–10 Act, valuation officers were established throughout the country in every town of any size, offices were taken, telephones were installed, stationery had to be obtained, and it was generally doubted whether there would be sufficient valuers available in the country to do the work required. As a matter of fact, speaking from definite instances, the Government could not obtain trained and professional valuers to do the valuation, and ex-clerks in valuers' offices were appointed to posts for which they were not fit.
I feel very strongly that those responsible, like the President of the Board of Trade, and particularly the Solicitor-General, who seems to be taking a great interest in this Measure, should make a close study of the matter and come down to the House with some facts. They should give us the number of valuers employed in the old days, the number of
offices they had to occupy, and give us all the facts as to the expenditure during any particular period in connection with that valuation. I would impress upon the House that the only thing we can take for our guidance is what accurred under that Act. Those of us who had practical experience of its working, know perfectly well that the number of men to be employed, the time to be taken and the expense to be incurred, are not only understated, but grossly understated. For that reason I support and impress on the House the necessity of supporting this Amendment.

Sir ARTHUR STEEL-MAITLAND: I wish to ask the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether he can give us any information about the Supplementary Estimates?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Pethick-Lawrence): I understand the right hon. Gentleman to ask whether there will be a Supplementary Estimate. The answer is "Certainly." Assuming that this Financial Resolution is carried and the Bill is carried, as soon as there is a need for any substantial amount of money to be spent, there will have to be a Supplementary Estimate, and assuming that the Bill is in its final form, the Estimate will be precisely the same as now; about £400,000 will be put forward in the Supplementary Estimate. Should it be found, as the year proceeds, that that was a considerable underestimate and that more money was not available, of course a further Supplementary Estimate would have to be introduced. Therefore, really, the object of right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite is fully safeguarded, because they will have an opportunity of voting the amount on the Supplementary Estimate, and if that proves deficient, they will have a further opportunity in a further Supplementary Estimate which would be introduced.
In reply to the right hon. Member for Camborne (Mr. Leif Jones), of course we are not discussing the later Amendment, but, assuming that some such Amendment were carried, the position would be that on the unlikely assumption that the £2,000,000 figure came to be introduced, we should in any case have to acquaint the House with it by the introduction of a Supplementary
Estimate, and the only object of inserting such provision in this Financial Resolution would be that at that particular time there would have to be an alteration of the Financial Resolution and a Supplementary Estimate, but the Supplementary Estimate then would provide ample opportunity for the House to discuss the point. It would be quite impossible for the valuation to be stopped in the meantime by the provision of the Financial Resolution.

Mr. LEIF JONES: But it is possible to have an economical or an expensive valuation.

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: We are not satisfied with what the Financial Secretary to the Treasury has said. We are glad to know that we shall have a Supplementary Estimate brought before, the House, and that it will enable further consideration to be given to the subject before the House rises for the Autumn Recess.

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: No. I would not like to mislead the right hon. Gentleman. I did not say that; what I said was that substantially, after the passing of the Bill, there would be a great deal of preliminary work which would have to be done, and that the passage of the Bill and this Financial Resolution would be sufficient to justify the cost, but that before any substantial amount of money is spent a Supplementary Estimate would be required.

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: We want to know what is meant by "substantial." The information that we have so far is that a Supplementary Estimate round about the figure of £400,000 will be brought in at some time, and before any substantial sum is spent. What sort of figure is a "substantial" figure? We would like to have some sort of limit. What is likely to happen? Here we are with the Bill coming into force on 1st August. No doubt the Government are going to press ahead as fast as they can with the valuation. I see that the Financial Secretary nods his head. We rise in August for some time, if nothing else happens in the meantime. All the work is to be pressed forward as fast as possible. I do not know the date on which it is expected that Parliament will reassemble, but if we are not to have a Supplementary Estimate before
the Autumn Recess, we are going to have two or possibly three months of valuation work going ahead at full pressure after the engagement of the 2,000 officials. Clearly the work must be done as quickly as possible if the Government hope to impose the payment of the tax on the date already stated.
Therefore, I submit that this vague language about a Supplementary Estimate of an unspecified amount is altogether unsatisfactory. We are not told that it is to be limited to £400,000, which was the amount that the Chancellor of the Exchequer gave on a previous occasion as the outside limit; he said £300,000 to £400,000. In view of the vagueness which surrounds the matter, the House is not only amply justified in pressing for a limit to be placed in this Financial Resolution, but every supporter of the Government on the Liberal benches is justified in voting with us now. The only further thing that I would press upon the President of the Board of Trade is this: The right hon. Gentleman referred to the figure in this Amendment as being what those on this side of the House conceive to be necessary for the financial year. The figure of £400,000 is not in the least the figure that we conceive to be necessary for the financial year. It is not our estimate; it is not what we think is either necessary or desirable. We want none of it. The right hon. Gentleman appreciates that fact. But at any rate he fathered the estimate upon us as to what we thought would be necessary. What we put in was the outside limit of expenditure stated by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who gave the figure of £300,000 to £400,000. Therefore, when we inserted £400,000, we were inserting what we thought almost the limit of generosity, and even went beyond it, if we were to judge the figure by the principles of economy proposed from the Liberal benches.
I ask the House to consider the question on its merits and to press the President of the Board of Trade to meet what is quite clearly the wish of his Liberal friends, even if he has no particular regard for our wishes. Here we have a Financial Resolution in the usual rather vague terms. The President of the Board of Trade in commenting on it made this observation, of which I took a note:
In strictness it would be better that these Financial Resolutions should specify the precise sums to be expended.
If ever there was an occasion on which strictness was desirable—I commend this view to the Liberals—it is on the present Financial Resolution. We have a tax about which we know more than we knew before and about which we have had many statements made to us. What we think will be very considerable expenditure, the Government think will be comparatively nominal expenditure. We ask them to stand by the information that they have put before the House and to be willing to limit the year's expenditure. If they exceed the amount, they can come back to the House with another Financial Resolution. That is the procedure that has been followed in principle in Acts of Parliament continually, for instance in regard to the borrowing powers for the Unemployment Insurance Fund. That is done because the House wants to keep control over expenditure. The House wants to keep control over this expenditure, and if there is any genuineness in the Liberal desire for economy, this is precisely the sort of control which they ought to maintain with the utmost rigour. On a point of this kind we should naturally expect to have their support, for it would be in accordance with the general principles of financial propriety which they express.
5.0 p.m.
One reason for our putting down the Amendment is that we do not believe in the correctness of the amount named by the Government. We cannot believe that if this valuation is to be carried through with the speed that the Government propose, the work can be done for an amount as small as this. The Government have said that there is much information already in the Department with regard to valuation, and that they can go ahead with more speed—that a lot of that information has remained over from the previous valuation. If so, it means that they can go ahead and get their valuations out and serve them on the parties interested. They have to do so at once if they want to be able to impose the tax at the date indicated. Therefore the machinery will be set in motion very quickly and that means that the expenditure in any case will be much greater. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer has put forward this amount as
the outside limit of what he expects to be spent in this year the Government ought to consent to the insertion of that amount in the Financial Resolution.

Sir DENNIS HERBERT: If a man promises to carry out a certain work for a certain sum of money, and, when asked to bind himself not to exceed that amount, refuses to do so, then, if one is an ordinary sensible business man, one will say to that man, "You shall not have the job at all unless you do bind yourself to this amount." If the Government are not prepared to accept the Amendment, surely the implication is that they anticipate exceeding the amount and that ought not to be done without some sufficient explanation from the Government. We were informed yesterday that the Government proposed to adopt a certain course, in regard to a very radical alteration of the whole system under this part of the Bill. I think I am right in saying that, if they do so, it will result in the valuation costing a great deal less, because there will, probably, be a number of properties which, in those circumstances, it will not be necessary to value at all. Surely that is another indication that, even with this Amendment we are allowing the Government a very considerable margin by accepting an estimate which was made before they had decided to accept the alteration to which I have just referred. I understand the point has already been raised as to the terms upon which these valuers are to be engaged. I should like to know whether they are to have any pension rights.

Mr. W. GRAHAM: I have already explained to the House that all the 2,000 staff will be recruited on a temporary basis and that means, of course, without Civil Service superannuation.

Sir D. HERBERT: I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman. I was anxious to have that point made quite clear. The only other remark I wish to make in that connection is that if the valuation is to be pressed on with in a tremendous hurry, the number of valuers, fit to do the work, who will have to be engaged, will be very considerable and the Government should remember that the remuneration of professional people of this kind is to some extent governed by supply and demand. If the Government mean to employ an
enormous number of valuers at once they will find, if they are not careful, that the remuneration which they will be required to pay will be more than what one would describe as the normal market remuneration. In all the circumstances, I think we have a very strong case for putting some limit on the amount involved in this Resolution. As far as I can make out there is no answer to our request except that the Government tell us that there will be Supplementary Estimates and that we shall have another chance. But some of us have learned that if you miss one chance, the second chance is sometimes not forthcoming, and we do not propose to miss this chance, if we can help it, of confining the Government to the limit which they themselves have described as sufficient. I hope that the House will pass this Amendment limiting the powers of expenditure under this Resolution.

Sir WILLIAM DAVISON: I understand that the Government's excuse for the vagueness of this Financial Resolution is that it is in the usual form, but may I remind hon. Members opposite that the Budget which has necessitated this Resolution was not in the usual form, nor was the speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer in introducing the Budget at all a usual speech. He warned Members of the House of Commons that the Budget was a bare estimate, providing for certain expenditure referred to therein; that there would be no surplus of any kind on the Budget, and that any expenditure outside it would have to be provided by economies. The right hon. Gentleman indicated certain economies in connection with Unemployment Insurance. It would not be in order to discuss those economies now, further than to say that there is no indication at present on the part of the Government, that those economies will, to any substantial amount, be effected. Therefore as it is an exceptional Budget and as these are exceptional times of stringency all round, it is essential that this House should not pass a vague Resolution authorising this expenditure but should definitely circumscribe the extent of the expenditure. This is a reasonable Amendment. It merely asks that before losing control of this Resolution we should put a limit upon the amount involved. If the Government say that £400,000 is not suffi-
cient, then let them say what limit they would regard as sufficient. The House of Commons should not part with this Resolution without limiting the expenditure. It would be gravely departing from its duty if it did so.

Mr. HOLFORD KNIGHT: I am sure there is no one in this House who is more concerned about placing a limit on public expenditure than my right hon. Friend who presides with such distinction over the Board of Trade and who is in charge of this discussion. If it were possible on this occasion to place exact estimates before the House my right hon. Friend would, no doubt, do so. I ask hon. Members to consider the reasonableness of this suggestion. In some other places it is customary to say that a man is expected to contemplate the inevitable consequences of his actions. This House has discussed and in large part adopted, a series of proposals which require a valuation. We are now called upon to make financial provision for the purposes of that valuation. Hon. Gentlemen opposite who have resisted these proposals, naturally want to prevent any financial provision of the kind being made at all and, if such provision is made, they want it to be cut down to the lowest possible figure. I think I am not doing them any injustice in saying that their object is, so to limit the financial provision for this valuation, as to cripple and hamper the valuation to the greatest possible extent.

HON. MEMBERS: No!

Sir D. HERBERT: It is the Government's own figure that has been suggested.

Mr. KNIGHT: It is quite true, as was said by the hon. Member for Shipley (Mr. Lockwood), that in this matter we have to be guided by the experience of the 1909–10 legislation, and we know that if the purposes of this Bill are to be effected, we must contemplate the engagement of a considerable staff. Hon. Members who do not want this valuation to be made, naturally resist any step which is being taken to promote it. Those of us who want to see the valuation effected, as the foundation of a new and long-required system of public finance, wish to assist the proposal of the Government in every possible way.
Whether or not it is reasonable at this stage to expect exact estimates in this matter is a question which can be answered quite readily by hon. Members who remember what occurred from 1909–10 onwards. In those days if the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) had been asked to give an exact estimate of the cost of the valuation he could not have done it. Probably if an estimate had been given it would have been falsified by the expansion of the work necessitated by that valuation.

Mr. SMITHERS: Can the Government give an estimate now of what this valuation will cost?

Mr. KNIGHT: I am suggesting that such a request would be unreasonable. This Government cannot give an estimate of the cost of the valuation. All it can do is to ask the House to make certain financial provision—

HON. MEMBERS: Uncertain!

Sir D. HERBERT: The hon. and learned Member says that we are being asked to allow the Government "certain financial provision." That is what we on this side wish to do, but he is arguing in favour of an uncertain and unlimited financial provision.

Mr. KNIGHT: Perhaps I was misled by the eloquence of my hon. Friend opposite. I ought not to have used the word "certain." What I intended to say was this. All that the Government can do, to carry out the purposes of this valuation, is to ask the House to make financial provision for it, and, then, if necessary, come to the House again for further provision. I appreciate that for the reasons given by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Camborne (Mr. Leif Jones) it is desirable, if possible, to have exact estimates, but in this case we are entering upon a great new field of public valuation, and it is entirely unreasonable in the circumstances to ask for exact estimates.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The hon. and learned Member for South Nottingham (Mr. Knight) has fallen into two errors in connection with the Amendment. In the first place, the Amendment does not ask for an exact estimate of the amount to be spent. What it does is to seek to limit the amount which may be spent or
may be authorised to be spent up to the end of the financial year. In the second place, the hon. and learned Gentleman is equally mistaken in the motives which he attributes to the Opposition in putting down this Amendment. It is true that we oppose these proposals from beginning to end. We do not wish to see them carried out, but that is quite a different thing from the motive which prompts us in putting forward this Amendment.
I am astonished at what seems to me to be the unreasonableness of the President of the Board of Trade and the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, in opposing this obstinate resistance to a common-sense proposal. Consider what is the procedure proposed by right bon. Gentlemen opposite and the procedure which we propose. The right hon. Gentleman opposite says: "Let us start the work and go on with that work until we have spent a substantial sum of money, and then we shall come to the House and ask for a Supplementary Estimate, and if the House does not approve it has the right to vote against the Supplementary Estimate." That is a very illusory right under present conditions in the House of Commons. But that is not all. What is the right hon. Gentleman going to do, supposing the House does pass his Supplementary Estimate? He then goes on to spend a further substantial sum and comes with another Supplementary Estimate, and so he may go on indefinitely.
What is it that we propose? The right hon. Gentleman attempted to alarm the House by suggesting that the whole work of valuation would have to be held up if, by any unfortunate mischance, it were found that the expenditure was going to exceed the amount provided for in the Financial Resolution. That is a fantastic suggestion. Of course, the Government would know long before hand whether or not they were getting close to the end of their tether and would come down long before that and ask this House to pass another Financial Resolution. Indeed, I think that would be the proper thing for them to do, because it is the only way in which I think this House can keep any check upon the expenditure which hon. and right hon. Members opposite desire to incur.
I want now to make one or two other points and to indicate some reasons why it seems to me that the circumstances of
the present time are peculiar and demand that a definite limit should be put on the amount that is authorised to be spent in this connection. In the first place, I do not at all like the suggestion which comes from various parts of the House that this valuation is to be hurried on, helter-skelter, at lightning speed. A valuation which is done in that way is sure to be badly done, and while we here object to a valuation at all, yet, if we are to have a valuation, we desire to see that it shall be properly and effectively done.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Mr. Lockwood) has already pointed out, on the last occasion when it was attempted to make a valuation of this kind, it was found that there were not available sufficient valuers with the necessary experience and skill to be able to carry it out, and the result was that the Government of the day had to go into the highways and by-ways and scrape up substitutes, who were not efficient and did not carry out the work as it should have been carried out. I am very anxious that we should not do that, and that the Government should not carry out this valuation with desperate haste, but that they should lay their plans with proper forethought, that they should see that their staff is sufficiently equipped, mentally and otherwise, for the work which they are putting on them, and that they should feel that it is necessary not to take people not in a position to carry out work of this highly technical character. That is my first point.
The second point is one to which my hon. Friend the Member for South Kensington (Sir W. Davison) has already drawn attention, and that is that we are in the presence of an unbalanced Budget and of an unknown quantity. The right hon. Gentleman has budgeted for a surplus of £134,000. He himself estimated that he was going to spend £300,000 to £400,000 upon this valuation in the course of the present financial year. It is all very well to talk in this airy way about bringing in Supplementary Estimates, but the revenue of the country is not estimated to produce the money that is necessary. There is only one way in which it can be got, and that is by economies, and although we have heard a lot of talk about committees which are to bring about economies, we have not seen any of
the economies yet. In those circumstances, I submit that it is specially necessary to be careful that this valuation is not carried out extravagantly, that the Government should be warned by the fact that they have a definite limit set to what is authorised, and that they must exercise every possible care not to spend more money than is necessary.
There is another consideration. After all, if one looks upon the whole transaction which we have been discussing, it is a valuation that is proposed to us for the purpose of imposing a tax which is to bring in revenue, and although up to the present the Chancellor of the Exchequer has persistently refused to give us any, I will not say exact estimate, but any rough estimate, of the amount of revenue that he expects to get for a valuation which is to cost up to between £1,000,000 and £1,500,000, I think we have a right to look at that again in the light of the discussion which took place at the close of our proceedings yesterday.
What has happened since this Bill was first introduced? There has been a new arrangement come to, under which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has undertaken to accept a new Clause moved from the benches below the Gangway here. I confess that I have not been able to make either sense or grammar of the Clause which is put down on the Paper, but I may assume that any little defects of that kind will in time be put right by this party which is a master in the art of trial and error, and by making two or three more shots probably they will get it into a form in which it will be at least intelligible. I think we can at any rate see this, that it has completely knocked the bottom out of the revenue-producing qualities of this proposal, and if it had not been for the limitations imposed by the muzzle which has been put upon us, we on this side should have asked that the proceedings on the Bill should be interrupted until we had had an opportunity of hearing from the Chancellor of the Exchequer some statement of the effect upon the revenue of the Amendment which he has agreed to accept. Once again I say that that means that we are in the presence of special circumstances at the present time which do involve the necessity of
the greatest possible circumspection before we grant permission to the Government to go spending money right and left and before we give them a blank cheque.
I want to put this to the right hon. Gentleman: In our opinion it is essential that there should be a limit. In choosing the limit, my hon. and gallant Friend put down the sum which the Chancellor of the Exchequer himself had named as the outside maximum of what he expected to spend in the present year. The right hon. Gentleman says, "Oh, but accidents will happen in the best regulated families, and even that outside maximum may be increased." Then will he say himself what limit he will accept? Will he tell us? Will he take £500,000—£600,000? Surely there must be some limit even to what the right hon. Gentleman thinks he is going to spend between now and the end of March. Are we really to take it then that the Government are not prepared to put any limit upon what they are going to spend? In face of that refusal to put any limit whatsoever upon the amount of money which the right hon. Gentleman desires this House to authorise him to spend, I think the right hon. Gentleman below the Gangway must, according to his own principles, go with us into the Lobby in support of the Amendment.

Mr. CHARLES WILLIAMS: I am not sure whether the House need be really surprised at the right hon. Gentleman not making an answer to the question as to what limit he would accept, because naturally the Chancellor of the Exchequer, having comparative wisdom in these days, does not really mean that the right hon. Gentleman, or the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, or the Solicitor-General should be allowed to accept offers across the Floor of the House of Commons. It was a great relief to some Members of the Opposition that, although we could not get any answer out of the Government, and although we were sorry when we saw the Attorney-General leave the Chamber, we did get a highly interesting speech from the hon. and learned Member for South Nottingham (Mr. Knight), but I think it is a pity that the Prime Minister was not here to be able to hear it, because it might have been an opportunity for the future if that had taken place.
The really vital speech which was made this afternoon was that of the right hon. Member for Camborne (Mr. Leif Jones), who, as usual, laid down what I regard as the right position in connection with finance, and that is that the House of Commons should have control. He laid down that definite principle, as he always does, with very great clarity indeed, but he said, to summarise his remarks, that however important the principle was, there was always a risk. Is the risk so very big? The risk that he fears on this occasion is, I gather, that the valuation might be held up for want of money. He does not want an extravagant valuation; neither do I. He does not want the Government held up simply because there is a lack of money, but surely if we look at the Financial Memorandum in connection with the Bill, we shall find that the sum laid down there is somewhere between £1,000,000 and £1,500,000, and if we look at the Amendment we shall find that the sum mentioned is £400,000. During the current financial year already several months have passed, and the Bill cannot come into operation just yet, so that it looks at present as if the Treasury would have plenty of money with which to carry on during this year. Surely, under these circumstances, we might stand by our principles, run a very small risk on behalf of them, and lay it down in this case that the limit of £400,000 should be accepted.
The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade has laid it down that the staff is to be temporary. There will be a staff of 2,000 people, half of whom are to be professional valuers and half clerical helpers. It has been admitted that most of your so-called experts, or a certain number of them, will have to have some training as a preliminary. You keep them on for three years, and I presume that the valuation will take a few years. At the end of those three years—because we have been told very clearly that the valuers are only temporary—you will throw them all overboard, and some two years afterwards, or whenever the time comes, you will collect a new lot for the quinquennial valuation. Would it not be better to appoint a more or less permanent staff, who will gradually carry out your valuation, instead of getting your valuers, training them, and then throwing them on to the market?
There is a further point, which has never been answered, in connection with this matter. Is it possible for the right hon. Gentleman to tell the House if this valuation is intended primarily for the purpose merely of getting a valuation, or for the purpose of collecting taxes? You have your Customs authorities for the collection of taxes, and not for any specific purpose. Are these valuers simply to enable you to collect taxes, or are they for any further purpose? If they are merely for the purpose of collecting the tax, is it necessary for them to value the exemptions which will be made? Take, for instance, the exemptions which we are told are to be given, after the pressure on the Government from this party, to the great friendly societies. Are the Government going to value their land? If the exemptions are not to be valued, the Government do not need so much money for the valuations. As the exemptions grow, less money for valuation will be needed.
I can understand the Government wanting to value all land, because this is the nearest thing they have done to employ anybody since they came into power. The only argument that they could use for this expenditure is that it will give employment. They are, however, expending it in the worst possible way, for it will create disturbance and friction, and will place an additional burden on the taxpayers. My real object in rising is to offer some light criticism, of the Government, and to try without any great hope to extract some information on these two points. It is essential in these days to keep the strictest and tightest hand on the Government on every occasion in matters of finance. It is fashionable in some quarters to say that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is very hardhearted and cannot easily be squeezed. I have seen no Chancellor, and I have never heard of one, who can be squeezed more easily than the present Chancellor. Any party can always get him to add a little bit mono to the national expenditure. I want to see a definite limit, whatever the Government in power, put on expenditure, and I want to see Financial Resolutions always strictly limited by the House of Commons. That is the primary duty of the House.
Although this money is purely for valuers, the Government have at no time
informed the House how they will get these valuers. Some of us can remember the appalling ramp which took place after the 1910 Budget, when we saw people dragged in to act as valuers who had no knowledge of the methods of valuation. They were a perfect scandal and a laughing stock wherever they went. The result was that we had a valuation which was almost worthless. The same thing is likely to happen in this case. The sum mentioned in the Amendment is far too high; £200,000 would have been quite adequate, for there will be only three-quarters of the year in which to spend the money. Moreover, we should have a proper estimate before we are asked to spend anything. When we had a valuation of this kind before, incompetent people, to a large extent, were appointed to make the valuations, and, if a thing has been done badly in the past, we can guarantee that this Government will do it a thousand times worse.

Mr. SMITHERS: I wish to make an important point, and I wish that more people, and indeed the whole country, were here to hear it. My right hon. Friend the Member for Edgbaston (Mr. Chamberlain) said that the President of the Board of Trade and the Financial Secretary, who are on the Front Bench, are unreasonable in their attitude towards our demands. I am afraid that I must disagree with my right hon. Friend. The right hon. Gentleman and the hon. Gentleman on the Front Bench are not unreasonable; they have no power, and if any great point of policy arises, apart from the ordinary machinery of the Bill, they have to send outside to their master to get orders. No one deplores more than I do the illness of the Chancellor of the Exchequer as a man—we are all sorry for his illness—but it is not fair for a man who cannot attend to these Debates diligently day by day to be in charge of the finances of the country. It is not right, for instance, that when my right hon. Friend asked the President of the Board of Trade if he would accept £600,000 as a minimum, the right hon. Gentleman should apparently have to go out and ask. I ask the right hon. Gentleman now definitely whether he is in a position to say "yes" or "no" to the proposition of my right hon. Friend. When these great decisions
are to be taken, it is quite wrong not to be able to have someone here who has completely authority to give an answer to a concrete question such as the question we have put to the right hon. Gentleman.

Mr. W. GRAHAM: By the leave of the House, I intervene only to say that I regret that my hon. Friend has made that statement. I outlined the policy of the Government in this matter—I trust very clearly—immediately after the Amendment had been moved and seconded. It is not a matter of bargaining across the Floor of the House. I adhere to the policy that I outlined, and that is the policy of the Government.

Commander SOUTHBY: I must protest against the repeated refusal of the right hon. Gentleman to give any answer to the question of my right hon. Friend. Indeed, his refusal to accept the bid of the right hon. Gentleman must be foreign to his national characteristics. The instinct of his race being to accept a figure when they get the chance. The House should realise that we are to stand committed to an expenditure which has no limit. There has been only one speech from the other side of the House, and that came from the hon. and learned Member for South Nottingham (Mr. Knight), who gloried in the idea of going ahead and spending a sum with no limit—

Mr. KNIGHT: That is clearly an error.

Commander SOUTHBY: I understood him to defend "no limit," to use the slogan of a distinguished turf accountant, Mr. Douglas Stuart. That is what his speech meant from first to last. He accused us of wanting to prevent the spending of any sum of money, because we do not like the Land Tax. He said he was anxious that the Government should go forward with the valuation, and his was the only speech from the other side, from which no voice has been raised urging that there should be some limit put on the expenditure.

Mr. KELLY: The hon. and gallant Member has not been listening all the time.

Commander SOUTHBY: I have listened to a great portion of the Debate.
If the hon. Member has been listening the whole time, he should be the more qualified to rise and deliver a speech. I must protest against the refusal of the President of the Board of Trade to answer a question which has been put across the Floor of the House. He has been asked a specific question. Will he now state if there is to be any limit put to the expenditure, no matter how high?

If he will not say that, when we part with this Resolution, the House and the country will stand committed to an expenditure to which there is no limit whatever.

Question put, "That those words be there inserted."

The House divided: Ayes, 147; Noes, 263.

Division No. 315.]
AYES.
[5.42 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Forestier-Walker, Sir L.
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William


Albery, Irving James
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Peake, Capt. Osbert


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Galbraith, J. F. W.
Penny, Sir George


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Ganzonl, Sir John
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)


Aske, Sir Robert
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Perkins, W. R. D.


Astor, Viscountess
Glyn, Major R. G. C.
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)


Atkinson, C.
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Pownall, Sir Assheton


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley (Bewdley)
Greaves-Lord, Sir walter
Ramsbotham, H.


Bellairs, Commander Carlyon
Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John
Reid, David D. (County Down)


Betterton, Sir Henry B.
Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro' W.)
Remer, John R.


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Guinness, Rt. Hon. walter E.
Reynolds, Col. Sir James


Bowyer, Captain Sir George E. W.
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)


Braithwaite, Major A. N.
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell


Briscoe, Richard George
Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C (Berks, Newb'y)
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Salmon, Major I.


Buchan, John
Haslam, Henry C.
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Heneage, Lieut.-Col Arthur P.
Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart


Bullock, Captain Malcolm
Herbert, Sir Dennis (Hertford)
Savery, S. S.


Butler, R. A.
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.
Shepperson, Sir Ernest Whittome


Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)
Skelton, A. N.


Castle Stewart, Earl of
Hore-Belisha, Leslie
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)


Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir J. A. (Birm., W.)
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M.(Hackney, N.)
Smithers, Waldron


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)
Hurd, Percy A.
Southby, Commander A. R. J.


Chapman, Sir S.
Hurst, Sir Gerald B.
Spender-Clay, Colonel H.


Christie, J. A.
Hutchison, Maj.-Gen. Sir R.
Stanley, Hon. O. (Westmorland)


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Inskip, Sir Thomas
Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur


Cohen, Major J. Brunei
Lamb, Sir J. Q.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral M. F.


Colfox, Major William Philip
Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.
Taylor, Vice-Admiral E. A.


Colman, N. C. D.
Latham, H. P. (Scarboro' & Whitby)
Thompson, Luke


Colville, Major D. J.
Law, Sir Alfred (Derby. High Peak)
Thomson, Sir F.


Cooper, A. Duff
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.
Lewis, Oswald (Colchester)
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Cowan, D. M.
Llewellin, Major J. J.
Turton, Robert Hugh


Cranborne, Viscount
Lockwood, Captain J. H.
Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon


Croom-Johnson, R. P.
Long, Major Hon. Eric
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert


Cunliffe-Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
McConnell, Sir Joseph
Warrender, Sir Victor


Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)
Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Davies, Ma|. Geo. F.(Somerset, Yeovil)
Macquisten, F. A.
Wayland, Sir William A.


Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
Marjoribanks, Edward
Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)


Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F.
Meller, R. J.
Windsor-dive, Lieut -Colonel George


Dugdale, Capt. T. L.
Milne, Wardlaw-, J. S.
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Eden, Captain Anthony
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B.
Withers, Sir John James


Elliot, Major walter E.
Morris, Rhys Hopkins
Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount


Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston- s.-M.)
Morrison, W. S. (Glos., Cirencester)
Womersley, W. J.


Everard, W. Lindsay
Muirhead, A. J.
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton


Ferguson, Sir John
Nicholson, O. (Westminster)



Fielden, E. B.
Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G.(Ptrsf'ld)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES—


Ford, Sir P. J.
O'Neill, Sir H.
Captain Margesson and Captain Wallace.


NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Barnes, Alfred John
Brockway, A. Fenner


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Barr, James
Bromfield, William


Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher
Batey, Joseph
Bromley, J.


Altchison, Rt. Hon. Craigle M.
Beckett, John (Camberwell, Peckham)
Brooke, W.


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (Hillsbro')
Benn, Rt. Hon. Wedgwood
Brothers, M.


Alpass, J. H.
Bennett, Sir E. N. (Cardiff, Central)
Brown, C. W. E. (Notts. Mansfield)


Ammon, Charles George
Bennett, William (Battersea, South)
Buchanan, G.


Angell, Sir Norman
Benson, G.
Burgess, F. G.


Arnott, John
Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)
Buxton, C. R. (Yorks. W. R. Elland)


Attlee, Clement Richard
Bondfield, Rt. Hon. Margaret
Caine, Hall-, Derwent


Ayles, walter
Bowen, J. W.
Cameron, A. G.


Baker, John (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Cape, Thomas


Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley)
Broad, Francis Alfred
Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S. W.)


Charleton, H. C.
Lathan, G. (Sheffield, Park)
Riley, F. F. (Stockton-on-Tees)


Chater, Daniel
Law, Albert (Bolton)
Ritson, J.


Clarke, J. S.
Law, A. (Roesendale)
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O.(W. Bromwich)


Cluse, W. S.
Lawrence, Susan
Romeril, H. G.


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Lawrie, Hugh Hartley (Stalybridge)
Rosbotham, D. S. T.


Cove, William G.
Lawson, John James
Rowson, Guy


Cripps, Sir Stafford
Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle)
Russell, Richard John (Eddisbury)


Daggar, George
Leach, W.
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Dalton, Hugh
Lee, Frank (Derby, N. E.)
Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)


Davies, D. L. (Pontypridd)
Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern)
Samuel, H. walter (Swansea, West)


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Lees, J.
Sanders, W. S.


Day, Harry
Leonard, W.
Sandham, E.


Denman, Hon. R. D.
Lloyd, C. Ellis
Sawyer, G. F.


Dukes, C.
Logan, David Gilbert
Scott, James


Duncan, Charles
Longbottom, A. W.
Sexton, Sir James


Ede, James Chuter
Longden, F.
Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.


Edmunds, J. E.
Lovat-Fraser, J. A.
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Lunn, William
Shield, George William


Edwards, E. (Morpeth)
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)
Shillaker, J. F.


Egan, W. H.
Mac Donald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Elmley, Viscount
McElwee, A.
Simmons, C. J.


Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)
McEntee, V. L.
Sinclair, Sir A. (Caithness)


Foot, Isaac
McGovern, J. (Glasgow, Shettleston)
Sinkinson, George


Freeman, Peter
MacLaren, Andrew
Sitch, Charles H.


Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)
MacNeill-Weir, L.
Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)


Gardner, J. P. (Hammersmith, N.)
Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)
Smith, Lees-, Rt. Hon. H. B. (Keighley)


George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Mander, Geoffrey le M.
Smith, Tom (Pontefract)


George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesea)
Manning, E. L.
Smith, W. R. (Norwich)


Gill, T. H.
Mansfield, W.
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


Gillett, George M.
March, S.
Snowden, Thomas (Accrington)


Glassey, A. E.
Marcus, M.
Sorensen, R.


Gossl[...]ng, A. G.
Markham, S. F.
Stamford, Thomas W.


Gould, F.
Marley, J.
Stephen, Campbell


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Marshall, Fred
Strauss, G. R.


Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)
Mathers, George
Sullivan, J.


Gray, Milner
Matters, L. W.
Sutton, J. E.


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Maxton, James
Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln)


Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Messer, Fred
Taylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S. W.)


Groves, Thomas E.
Middleton, G.
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)


Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Mills, J. E.
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)


Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)
Milner, Major J.
Thurtle, Ernest


Hall, Capt. W. G. (Portsmouth, C.)
Montague, Frederick
Tillett, Ben


Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Zetland)
Morgan, Dr. H. B.
Tinker, John Joseph


Harbord, A.
Morley, Ralph
Toole, Joseph


Hardie, David (Rutherglen)
Morrison, Ht Hon. H. (Hackney, S.)
Tout, W. J.


Hardie, G. D. (Springburn)
Mort, D. L.
Townend, A. E.


Harris, Percy A.
Muff, G.
Turner, Sir Ben


Hastings, Dr. Somerville
Muggeridge, H. T.
Vaughan, David


Haycock, A. W.
Murnin, Hugh
V[...]ant, S. P.


Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)
Nathan, Major H. L.
Walker, J.


Henderson, Arthur, Junr. (Cardiff, S.)
Naylor, T. E.
Wallace, H. W.


Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow)
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Watkins, F. C.


Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield)
Noel Baker, P. J.
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Herr[...]otts, J.
Noel Buxton. Baroness (Norfolk, N.)
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Oldfield, J. R.
Wellock, Wilfred


Hoffman, p. C.
Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston)
We[...]sh, James (Paisley)


Hollins, A.
Oliver, p. M. (Man., Blackley)
West, F. R.


Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)
Owen, Major G. (Carnarvon)
Westwood, Joseph


Hunter, Dr. Joseph
Palin, John Henry.
Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)


Isaacs, George
Paling, Wilfrid
Whiteley, William (Blaydon)


Jenkins, Sir William
Palmer, E. T.
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


John, William (Rhondda, West)
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Johnston, Rt. Hon. Thomas
Perry, S. F.
Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)


Jones, Llewellyn-, F.
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Phillips, Dr. Marion
Williams, T. (York, Valley)


Jowitt, Rt. Hon. F. W.
Picton-Turbervill, Edith
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Jowitt, Rt. Hon. Sir W. A. (Preston)
Pole, Major D. G.
Wilson, J. (Oldham)


Kedward, R. M. (Kent, Ashford)
Potts, John S.
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Kelly, W. T.
Price, M. P.
Winterton, G. E.(Lecester, Loughb'gh)


Kennedy, Rt. Hon. Thomas
Quibell, D. J. K.
Wise, E. F.


Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.
Ramsay, T. B. Wilson
Wood, Major McKenzie (Banff)


Kinley, J.
Rathbone, Eleanor
Young, R. S. (Islington, North)


Kirkwood, D.
Raynes, W. R.



Knight, Holford
Richards, R.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES—


Lang, Gordon
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Mr. B. Smith and Mr. Hayes.


Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Riley, Ben (Dewsbury)

Mr. OSWALD LEWIS: I beg to move, in line 4, at the end, to add the words:
Provided that the total expenditure so incurred shall not exceed two million pounds.
I should have liked this matter discussed at an earlier stage, but though I put down an Amendment in identical terms for the Committee stage of the Financial Resolution, not merely was it
not possible to discuss that Amendment but it was not then possible to discuss even the Financial Resolution itself, owing to the operation of the severe Guillotine under which we are proceeding; and I would remark that though the President of the Board of Trade seems to think the word "timetable" sounds pleasanter, it is equally objectionable in its operation. This being the earliest opportunity of moving this Amendment I was naturally heartened by finding that before I had even risen to move it I was assured of support from the right hon. Member for Camborne (Mr. Leif Jones). I value his support for two reasons; first, because of his long experience in this House, and, secondly, because he is more friendly to the Government's proposals. It cannot be said of him, as it might be said of me with some show of colour, that he is supporting this Amendment with a view to preventing or hampering the carrying out of the valuation. The fact that I have enlisted that distinguished support should convince the House that the Amendment is moved purely with the object of retaining a proper control over expenditure by this House, and that it does not raise the question of whether the valuation should or should not be made.
Those Members who were present when we were discussing Clause 7 of the Finance Bill in Committee may remember that the Solicitor-General told us that in making their estimates of the machinery required to carry out the valuation and the cost of the valuation they had not had regard to the experience of other countries. On the face of it that may seem curious, in view of the large amount of experience upon which they could draw, but the Solicitor-General told us quite definitely that the Government disregarded it, on the ground that it did not apply to their proposals and that they preferred to base their estimate, of the cost upon the expert evidence at their disposal. The Solicitor-General further said that the Government were of opinion that an extra staff numbering some 2,000 would be engaged, and that the calculations had been made on that basis. The Memorandum on the cover of the Finance Bill states:
The amount required to provide additions to professional and clerical staff, office
accommodation, equipment and supplies and remuneration payable to the panel of referees (the appeal body) is expected to be not less than £1,000,000 and may approach £1,500,000.
The important words are that it is expected that the cost will not be less than £1,000,000 and may approach £1,500,000. I think I may say without fear of contradiction that there is a very considerable amount of public anxiety as to whether these estimates are reasonable, as to whether it is possible to make such a valuation for anything like that figure. If the right hon. Gentleman who is in charge of this Resolution this afternoon will accept my Amendment, he will immediately allay that anxiety, because though the figure in my Amendment is considerably higher than the maximum suggested in the Financial Resolution it is very much lower than what many people think will be spent on the valuation. There will be considerable public relief if it is known that, whatever the Government spend, they cannot exceed the figure of £2,000,000. The hon. and learned Member for South Nottingham (Mr. Knight) told us that whatever estimate was put forward was sure to be falsified. I shall be interested to learn from the President of the Board of Trade whether he accepts that as a reasonable prophecy on the estimate he laid before us. It seems rather an extraordinary statement to make, having regard to the opportunities the Government have for obtaining the very best advice on this question.
If the Government accept this Amendment anxiety about the unlimited cost of this valuation will be immediately allayed; but what will be the position if they refuse to accept it? Obviously they will confirm in their fears those members of the public who are already of opinion that the estimate is grossly inadequate; and I venture to say, further, that such a refusal will cast very grave doubts upon the good faith of the Government in this matter. If, after careful consideration, and taking the best expert advice, the Government come to the House and say, "We can assure you that we shall spend not more than about £1,000,000 or at the outside £1,500,000," and yet refuse this Amendment, the public will feel they are thinking, "We do not really know; we may spend £2,000,000, £3,000,000 or £4,000,000." That is a risk which the
right hon. Gentleman ought not to run. He ought not to let the Government lie under the imputation that the figures in the Financial Memorandum are not serious estimates at all, but put there only to deceive, only to allay the public anxiety as to the cost of this experiment, and that the Government themselves do not believe them.
6.0 p.m.
It is for that reason that I have taken even a higher figure than that contained in the Financial Memorandum, and I have added £500,000 to allow for any possible reasonable error. I take it that the President of the Board of Trade will not deny that with an estimate of cost placed at between £1,000,000 and £1,500,000, no reasonable variation in that cost should take it over £2,000,000. I am allowing a margin of 33⅓ per cent. on the maximum estimate. If the President of the Board of Trade refuses to accept this Amendment, he will be casting the reflection upon the Government that their estimate is not a serious one. The hon. Member for Chislehurst (Mr. Smithers) made some observations as to the extent of the responsibilities of the President of the Board of Trade, but I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that I do not share the anxiety of the hon. Member for Chislehurst on that point, and I assume that, as Minister in charge of the Financial Resolution, he is perfectly competent to accept or reject this Amendment. Accordingly, I ask him to accept it.

Mr. MARJORIBANKS: I beg to second the Amendment.
We ought to place some sort of limit on the amount of money to be spent during the time that the valuation is taking place. I think that the arguments put forward in favour of this Amendment are unanswerable. We are glad to have the support, on this occasion, of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Camborne (Mr. Leif Jones), who, I presume, is speaking for the Liberal party, who have put themselves in the unenviable position in which advance means disaster and retreat means disgrace. Although we are doubtful as to the position of the Liberal party with regard to the rest of the Finance Bill, I am glad that they are going to support this Amendment to limit the expenditure to £2,000,000.
There is one particular aspect of this Finance Bill which I do not think has been noticed, and which makes it quite different from other Finance Bills. This is not a Finance Bill for one year, but is really the anticipation of Finance Bills for a number of years. Therefore, it is more essential and necessary, on this occasion, to set a limit to the financial expenditure. After all, we are not asking very much from the President of the Board of Trade, but we are asking him to have the courage, if not of his convictions, at any rate of his mathematical calculations. We are asking the right hon. Gentleman to have the courage to support his own estimate. It was said during the War that there was a particular aeronautical manoeuvre, which was disastrous to our airmen, which they were unable to achieve successfully, and a mathematical professor formed a purely mathematical idea that the thing was being done wrongly. After a little calculation he went up and performed it rightly. That professor really showed courage in regard to his mathematical calculation, and we are asking the President of the Board of Trade to do something of the same kind, and have the courage to put a limit on his estimate. I ask the President of the Board of Trade to consider whether he cannot accept this very reasonable proposal, because I think my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester (Mr. O. Lewis) has been very generous in his Amendment by allowing the right hon. Gentleman £500,000 over the estimate which has been given to the House on behalf of the Government.

Mr. W. GRAHAM: The last Amendment we discussed related to a limit of the cost of the valuation for this financial year, but what is now proposed is a limit of £2,000,000 on the cost of the valuation, whatever period that valuation may cover. The arguments which have been used in favour of this Amendment seem to be based on some misconception as to the powers and opportunities that members have if they choose to exercise them in a proper way. After all, a proposal of this kind, or any expenditure relating to valuation, would, in an ordinary financial year, have to be submitted to the Treasury, where I can assure the House that it would be very carefully scrutinised. After that scrutiny
is completed, it is included in the Estimates which are submitted in the Spring to hon. Members, and which are open for discussion within the 20 days of Supply. I think that is a real protection, and hon. Members will get, year by year, during the process of this valuation, as exact an estimate as is possible of the sum which will be required within that financial year for this purpose. In the course of the Debates in this House hon. Members are entitled to ask the Minister all sorts of questions, and they can move the rejection of the estimate if they consider that it is inconsistent. That seems to me to be a real protection for this purpose. I do not want to make other than a passing reference to the other two parts of our machinery which exist for the protection of hon. Members. There is the analysis of the Estimates Committee, and there is, of course, the review of the public Accounts Committee. There is also the machinery for criticising the estimates which exist on the Floor of the House.
I would like to ask, Is there any real' protection at all in having a statutory limit? All that is imported into the Act of Parliament is a declaration that the annual expenditure is not to exceed £2,000,000. We have already stated to the House that the estimate we have formed of the cost is not less than £1,000,000 and may approach £1,500,000, and that is as near as we can go on all the information before us as to the sum that is likely to be required. I hope that it will not be necessary to exceed that sum, but I want to say candidly that, in my experience of financial matters in this House extending over 12 or 13 years, the fixing of a statutory limit very often suggests that that is the sum that is available, and the amount which is going to be spent. I do not want to push that argument too far, but there is at least that side to the question. On the other hand, without a statutory limit, there is the analysis of the Estimates year by year. If by any chance the provision were insufficient, and that sum were exceeded, then, of course, the Government of the day could only come to the House with a new Financial Resolution and a new Act of Parliament, because what has been imported into the legislation is a statutory limit beyond which the Government cannot go. There is really more protection in the annual Estimates. In fact, the annual Estimates are a much
better protection than fixing a limit. For these and other reasons I must object to the Amendment.

Mr. LEIF JONES: The President of the Board of Trade has not met in the smallest degree the case which has been put forward in favour of this Amendment. The right hon. Gentleman has referred to the Estimates of the year. I agree that the Estimates are usually very accurate, and give to the House a very good idea of the amount of money that is going to be spent during the year, but we are dealing here not with one year but with several years. It is going to take three years to carry out this, scheme. Whenever a wise man enters into an enterprise of that kind, he asks what it is going to cost, not in the next six months but as a whole, and I think the Committee is entitled to know what the Government are going to spend during the whole period. Therefore, I think it is advisable that we should put in a limit of £2,000,000.
The Government know that I desire to have this valuation and to have it well done, but I presume that they have not entered upon this enterprise without having made some estimate of what it is going to cost. The cost of the valuation is an essential element in the consideration of this question. The Government have already stated in the Financial Memorandum to this Bill that they expect the cost will be not less than £1,000,000 and may approach £1,500,000, and this Amendment allows an addition to that estimate of £500,000. In these circumstances, I think that an additional £500,000 is a sufficient margin to enable the Government to carry out their valuation. I do not share the exaggerated estimate of this valuation which has been put forward by hon. Members above the Gangway. I do not think the Government estimate is much too low, but, in any case, the Government ought to be prepared to give us a figure showing what is their estimate of the whole cost of the valuation. The President of the Board of Trade is, in many ways, a model financier, but in this case I am bound to say that I do not think he has made out a good case, and the House ought to be told what this valuation is going to cost. That is an essential element in forming a judgment as to whether the scheme is worth proceeding with, and when the right hon. Gentleman is offered £500,000
more than his own estimate, I think that is a very generous provision. Therefore, I must go, reluctantly but quite firmly, into the Lobby in support of this Amendment.
I think it is only fair to say that in this matter I speak for myself. I am accustomed to speak for myself in this House. I observe that there is a great tendency to say, whenever a man opens his mouth, that what he says represents the view of the party to which he belongs. I have belonged to one party all my life, but I have never put my vote in the keeping of the votes of the majority of the party. I believe that a Member of Parliament is answerable to one set of people only, and they are his own constituents, and I have never regarded myself as answerable to anyone else. That diminishes my value to the party, I am sure, but I speak for myself in this matter, and I vote for myself when I go into the Lobby with hon. Members above the Gangway.

Captain EDEN: The issue which arises here is of very much more than ordinary importance. We hear complaints, not only in this House, but outside, of the increasingly slender control that we are able to exercise over the national expenditure. The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade this afternoon, in reply to this request, made just the ordinary official apologia. He gave a nice little lecture as to the sort of control which we enjoy. He told us that there was a very watchful Treasury. I hope there is. But a watchful Treasury in no sense absolves this House from exercising its responsibility. The right hon. Gentleman has told us that we can ask questions—a power which even this Government has not yet removed; but there is a power far greater, or far more certain, than either that of the Treasury or that of asking questions, which Ministers may or may not answer, and that is the power which rests in this Amendment, and which I think this House should exercise. It is hardly to be expected that the House will be willing to accept the right hon. Gentleman's assurance that there are safeguards which might be useful when we have here in our hands a safeguard which would obviously serve the purpose which I believe the House wishes to achieve.
The previous experience which this House has had of these valuations has not
been altogether happy. What the right hon. Gentleman is asking us to do this afternoon is to give to the Government carte blanche to spend as much as they like on this valuation. It is inconceivable that, at a time like this, anyone in a local authority, not to say in a national business, would come forward with a proposition such as this; yet the right hon. Gentleman seems to think that the fact that the Government will do their best not to spend beyond 50 per cent. more than they undertake will be their maximum, should be a sufficient satisfaction for the House of Commons to-day; but it is surely for us in this House, if we care at all for our control over the public purse, to exercise the necessary pressure on the Government of the day. We continually see this tendency of the executive to come here and say to the House: "This is what we propose to do; it is for the best in the best of all possible worlds; we are not quite sure what it is going to cost."
See how wide the right hon. Gentleman's figure is. It allows a 50 per cent. margin between the highest and the-lowest estimate, and this Amendment allows another 50 per cent.; but, even then, the right hon. Gentleman says he cannot promise that he will be able to keep within that figure, and anyhow we must not tie him down. I maintain that it is the duty of the House to tie that figure down. The Government must face all the consequences, financial or otherwise, of their legislation. If they cannot estimate them, they ought not to introduce legislation at all. Unless this House is willing to exercise its authority in these matters, we shall have let slip one more of the powers which in olden times it held as privileges which it could never yield. I should be very sorry to see one more triumph of the power of the executive over the power of the House of Commons. If we cannot exercise our authority on so simple an issue as this, then we, and not the Government, will be responsible for the consequences. Personally, I am sorry that my hon. Friend, in his Amendment, has put the figure so high. I think that, if any maximum figure were stated, the figure that the Government themselves estimate would have been the correct one, but the generous allowance made in the Amendment makes it all the more incredible that the Government should refuse to accept it. If they persist in their
attitude, I hope that the House will carry the Amendment, not only because it is vital in the interests of finance, but because it is more than time that executives, of whatever party, had it made plain to them that the House of Commons is an authority greater than they.

Sir THOMAS INSKIP: I need add very little to what has been said by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Captain Eden) and by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Camborne (Mr. Leif Jones). There are some matters which are so simple, and the issues in regard to which are so direct and plain, that the more one talks about them the more likely, perhaps, they are to be obscured. The President of the Board of Trade has refused to tell the House in a fashion that will bind him what this valuation is going to cost. He treated us to a lecture on the opportunities for considering finance which the House has under its existing procedure, but the fact that he referred to the Estimates Committee and the Public Accounts Committee shows the bareness of his cover. If that were all that he could refer to as an illustration of the powers of the House, he must indeed have been at his wits' end to suggest that the House will have ample control over the cost of this valuation.

Mr. W. GRAHAM: I said that that Was by no means all. I pointed out that those were two opportunities, but that the real opportunity is during the progress of Supply on the Floor of the House.

Sir T. INSKIP: The right hon. Gentleman certainly mentioned the Public Accounts Committee and the Estimates Committee. If you add nothing to nothing, it makes nothing, and I understand, therefore, from his last intervention, that he mentioned the Estimates Committee and the Public Accounts Committee, not intending that any importance should be attached to them, but intending that importance should be attached to some other powers of the House. So far as the other powers of the House are concerned, he referred to the opportunities which will be presented, on the successive Supplementary Estimates, of checking expenditure, but that will involve the process of considering at any time whether the House should throw good money after bad. We shall get one Supplementary Estimate
for, shall I say, £1,500,000; the valuation will be, perhaps, only half completed; and the House will then have to face the question whether it shall spend some more money to complete a valuation which has far exceeded the estimates deliberately offered to the House by the right hon. Gentleman. The advantage of dealing with the matter here and now is that we have an opportunity of considering whether the game is really worth the candle. If we are told what the valuation is going to cost to-day, and if we put the figure into the Bill, then the House can form its own opinion at the proper time, that is to say, to-day, as to whether the cost of the valuation is likely to exceed the amount which will be collected in the new conditions which have arisen.
The right hon. Gentleman said that he wished to speak candidly, and he said that he found from experience that the insertion of a statutory limit in an Act of Parliament generally resulted in an impression getting about that that was the sum which it was intended to spend. In the preceding sentence, he had told us that matters like the cost of a valuation are very carefully scrutinised in the Treasury. Where is the careful scrutiny in the Treasury Chambers if he tells us that a figure inserted in a Bill as a maximum limit is always accepted as the sum which is to be spent? That does not say much for the public Department with which the right hon. Gentleman was once associated, and I should imagine that the Treasury officials will not be very grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for the testimony he has given to the scrutiny which they exercise in regard to expenditure, if he tells us that they are so simple and so wicked as, when they see a maximum inserted in an Act of Parliament, to close their papers and say that they need not ask anything, because they are obviously intended to spend up to the hilt. [Interruption.] The right hon. Gentleman really did say that. He said that he wished to speak candidly, and that he could not disguise from the House the result of his experience, which was that, when a maximum sum is inserted in an Act of Parliament, there is a tendency to regard that as the sum which is intended to be spent. I have not parodied the right hon. Gentleman's argument at all. That means that the Treasury
officials are the victims of this extraordinary hallucination, that Parliament has intended a maximum sum to be a minimum sum. The veriest child in finance, I think, would not be guilty of such a mistake as that.
Let the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues face the question which has been propounded by my hon. Friend who moved this Amendment—shall we here and now know what the sum is which this House thinks is the maximum which ought to be spent on the valuation and which will be worth while, having regard to the sum collected? I hope that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Camborne spoke, not only for himself, but for others below the Gangway to whom the cogency of his observations will appeal. I see the Chief Whip of his party beside him, and I hope that the Chief Whip is as intelligent and as courageous as the right hon. Gentleman himself. I hope that, with the assistance of the remarks from below the Gangway as well as from above the Gangway, the President of the Board of Trade will see that he will be doing credit to the Chancellor of the Exchequer's own estimate if he has the courage of his convictions and puts this figure into the Bill, so that the House can know where it stands. I hope that we may be able to go to a Division on this subject, as there are some very important questions to be dealt with in the remaining 15 minutes that are loft to us for the rest of the Clauses which have to be disposed of before 7.30.

Sir W. DAVISON: The President of the Board of Trade did not deal at all with the points that I raised on the previous Amendment. He has referred to the normal practice of the House with regard to finance, and on the last Amendment he referred to the normal scope of the Resolution. I pointed out that the finances of the country this year are not normal, and that the Budget is not a normal Budget, so that, while in normal times it might be reasonable to give a Government general powers, in these times all expenditure has to be circumscribed and most closely scrutinised. I will read two sentences from the speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer in opening his Budget. He then pointed out that the balance sheet of the nation
for the current year would leave a nominal margin of £134,000 only, and he went on to say:
I have made no provision for supplementary expenditure…. If prosperity should return it may well be that a margin will be found…. Apart from this, I definitely contemplate that any gap which occurs in the finance of the year should be met by economy."—[OFFICIAL REPORT. 27th April, 1931; col. 1408, Vol. 251.]
I ask the President of the Board of Trade, where is this £2,000,000 to come from then? Surely, we ought to limit the sum to £2,000,000, which is anything between 50 and 100 per cent. above the Government's own estimate. We always look upon the President of the Board of Trade as an eminently reasonable man, and I cannot believe that he can possibly suggest to the House that it is unreasonable to fix a limit 50 per cent., or perhaps 100 per cent., higher than the Government's own estimate, before the House of Commons allows this Resolution to go through.

Mr. WISE: I can conceive of no more ineffective method of enforcing economy than the scheme proposed in this Amendment. I have had some experience, as many hon. Members have, of battling with the Treasury on Estimates for Departments, and on those occasions to put in a figure is to give a standard on which the Department which desires to spend can base its argument. If no figure at all is put in, then the Treasury can fight every item in the most unreasonable and difficult way. They can raise all sorts of troubles, real and imaginary, as reasons why the money should not be spent, and anyone familiar with the methods of the Treasury knows how effective they can be in producing reasons for stopping expenditure. The idea that a Department can get round the Treasury with ease and speed is entirely mistaken. If, however, a figure of this sort is put in, then the Departmental officer who goes to the Treasury, having based his Estimates on this figure, can always reply, "This was the conception which the House of Commons formed as to what the expenditure will be." This Amendment, however, so far from limiting the expenditure, puts the maximum on which the Department can base its argument at, as I understand it, from £500,000 to £1,000,000—from 50 to 100 per cent.—higher than the Department itself at this stage has estimated as likely to be required.
Any more crazy method of enforcing economy than to suggest that the Department should spend twice as much as they now think is necessary I cannot conceive. I hope the Government will resist the Amendment, not because I think the procedure of the House is at all satisfactory in the control of expenditure—it is extremely ineffective and obsolete—but this is not the way of putting it right. This is the way to make it worse.

Lieut. - Colonel Sir FREDERICK HALL: The new theory that we have heard from the hon. Member seems to be this. We are not prepared to put any limit in the Bill, because that limit means that the Department will say, "We have to spend this £2,000,000; otherwise, the Government will not be satisfied." Such a suggestion is absolutely preposterous.

Mr. WISE: What I said was that this gives the Department the opportunity of saying, "This is the conception which the Tory party or the House had as to the amount of expenditure that would be necessary. The Tory party thought it might be necessary to spend twice as much as the Department has already estimated."

Sir F. HALL: From what I know of Government Departments, I believe they go carefully into the various items. I am not satisfied to leave the Government with a blank cheque. I am not satisfied for them to say they can spend any amount they like. The Memorandum suggests that £1,000,000 or £1,500,000 would be required. If the House is to regulate and be master of its own position, it should say to the Government, "This is the amount that we are going to allocate to you for expenditure on a certain object. If you want more, come and ask for a Supplemental Vote," and the House, as a rule, grants it, but it has an opportunity of scrutinising it carefully and seeing exactly how the money that has been voted, has been spent. We are suggesting that we will give them up to £2,000,000 if they find it necessary to expend it. [An HON. MEMBER: "Another £1,000,000!"] It may be another £1,000,000, but hon. Members opposite do not mind how much is going to be expended. It may be £3,000,000, £4,000,000 or £5,000,000. The Government answer is, "You gave us carte
blanche and, therefore, we have been within our rights in expending such and such an amount." There are only six, seven or eight months of this financial year in which to expend the money.
I should have thought, no matter how many people they want to employ, they would find it rather difficult to spend judiciously, between now and the end of the financial year, anything like £2,000,000 and, considering how heavily taxpayers are pressed, that the Government would immediately accept the proposal that there should be some limit to the amount required for the purpose of this land valuation. Some of us can remember when we had a similar proposal in 1910 and the vast amount of money that was expended then. The cost was considerably more than the amount obtained, and I am afraid we are going to see a repetition of that when we have a Government in power that does not care a straw what the cost may be so long as they are expending what they consider the money that is derived, not only from the working classes, but from those who happen to be in the position of having a little more money. It has been the policy of this Government to take everything they can possibly get. I trust, after due consideration, the Government will accept the Amendment.

Mr. ERNEST BROWN: I thought the speech of the hon. Member for Leicester (Mr. Wise) a very curious one. He described his experience at the Treasury. I could not help reflecting that I should like to hear Treasury officials giving their experience of him. He certainly laid himself open to the very adequate retort that, if the House refuses to pass this £2,000,000, their conception will be that the House said it did not matter what the limit was. The hon. Member cannot use that argument without being open to that retort. As a matter of fact, I do not think the Treasury will take either view. But the real issue is not that. Let us concede all that the hon. Member desires for himself. Whether the Treasury control is effective or ineffective, whether they take his conception or the one I have stated, why should the House abrogate any power it may take to itself and leave the control in the hands of the Treasury, or any other body out-side the House? The real issue that arises is in terms of controllers. Who is to control
the controllers? I am in favour of the Amendment, because it imposes a statutory limit and because it gives the House an opportunity which it would not otherwise have.
The President of the Board of Trade, with his customary caution, did not stress the Estimates Committee, or even the Public Accounts Committee, over which he presided for five years, anything like as highly as he stressed the Treasury control, and quite rightly. The working of the Estimates Committee is shadowy as a method of control. The Estimates Committee on an average only gets a couple of Estimates a year. This thing may never come up before them for six or seven years. Its work is post mortem. Here we are arranging for a brand new experiment. It may be much more costly than the Government suggest. Alterations being made in the Bill as it goes through Committee may quite easily make it imperative to spend more money than was first suggested.

The issue that the House has to vote on is whether or no, in addition to the actual control of the Treasury, of the Public Accounts Committee and the Estimates Committee, in addition to Supply, the only other opportunity, which may or may not arise inside the 20 days, it will insist, if more than £2,000,000 is demanded, on having a definite Parliamentary opportunity. The last thing a Chief Whip wants is for a Minister to come to him with a new proposal demanding Parliamentary time, because Parliamentary time is the enemy of all Governments, and sometimes the friend of all taxpayers. I shall support the Amendment because we ought to have a statutory limit. I do not suppose it will be reached, but, if it is, let them bring forward their new proposal for another amount and let the House give a definite decision on it.

Question put, "That those words be there added."

The House divided: Ayes, 188; Noes, 264.

Division No. 316.]
AYES.
[6.43 P.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Cooper, A. Duff
Haslam, Henry C.


Ainsworth, Lieut.-Col. Charles
Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.


Albery, Irving James
Cowan, D. M.
Herbert, Sir Dennis (Hertford)


Allen, Lt.-Col. Sir William (Armagh)
Cranborne, Viscount
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Crichton-Stuart, Lord C.
Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.


Aske, Sir Robert
Croom-Johnson, R. P.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)


Astor, Maj. Hn. John J.(Kent, Dover)
Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)
Hurd, Percy A.


Astor, Viscountess
Cun[...]fle-Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Hurst, Sir Gerald B.


Atkinson, C.
Dairymple-White, Lt.-Col. Sir Godfrey
Hutchison, Maj.-Gen. Sir R.


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley (Bewdley)
Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. (Hertford)
Inskip, Sir Thomas


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Davies, Maj. Geo. F.(Somerset, Yeovil)
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)


Balniel, Lord
Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)


Beaumont, M. W.
Dawson, Sir Philip
Jones, Rt. Hon. Lelf (Camborne)


Bellairs, Commander Carlyon
Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F.
Kedward, R. M. (Kent, Ashford)


Betterton, Sir Henry B.
Dugdale, Capt. T. L.
Kindersley, Major G. M.


Bevan, S. J. (Holborn)
Eden, Captain Anthony
Lamb, Sir J. O.


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Elliot, Major walter E.
Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.


Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart
Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-S. M.)
Latham, H. P. (Scarboro' & Whitby)


Bracken, B.
Everard, W. Lindsay
Law, Sir Alfred (Derby, High Peak)


Braithwaite, Major A. N.
Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Leighton, Major B. E. P.


Briscoe, Richard George
Ferguson, Sir John
Lewis, Oswald (Colchester)


Broadbent, Colonel J.
Fielden, E. B.
Llewellin, Major J. J.


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Foot, Isaac
Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)
Ford, Sir P. J.
Lockwood, Captain J. H.


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Forestier-Walker, Sir L.
Long, Major Hon. Eric


Buchan, John
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
McConnell, Sir Joseph


Bullock, Captain Malcolm
Galbraith, J. F. W.
Macdonald, Sir M. (Inverness)


Butler, R. A.
Ganzoni, Sir John
Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.


Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Gault, Lieut.-Col. A. Hamilton
Macquisten, F. A.


Campbell, E. T.
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)


Carver, Major W. H.
Glyn, Major R. G. C.
Margesson, Captain H. D.


Castle Stewart, Earl of
Gower, Sir Robert
Marjoribanks, Edward


Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Meller, R. J.


Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R.(Prtsmth, S.)
Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)
Merriman, Sir F. Boyd


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir. J. A. (Birm., W.)
Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John
Milne, Wardlaw-, J. S.


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)
Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro' W.)
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B.


Chapman, Sir S.
Gritten, W. G. Howard
Morris, Rhys Hopkins


Christie, J. A.
Guinness, Rt. Hon. walter E.
Morrison, W. S. (Glos., Cirencester)


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive


Cohen, Major J. Brunei
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Muirhead, A. J.


Colfox, Major William Philip
Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)


Colman, N. C. D.
Hartington, Marquess of
Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G. (Ptrst'ld)


Colville, Major D. J.
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Oman, Sir Charles William C.


O'Neill, Sir H.
Savery, S. S.
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William
Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.
Turton, Robert Hugh


Peake, Captain Osbert
Shepperson, Sir Ernest Whittome
Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyan


Penny, Sir George
Skelton, A. N.
Wallace, Capt. D. E. (Hornsey)


Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield. Hallan)
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert


Perkins, W. R. O.
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)
Smith-Carington, Neville W.
Wayland, Sir William A.


Pownall, Sir Assheton
Smithers, Waldron
Wells, Sydney R.


Ramsbotham, H.
Southby, Commander A. R. J.
Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)


Remer, John R.
Spender-Clay, Colonel H.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Reynolds, Col. Sir James
Stanley, Hon. O. (Westmorland)
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Richardson, Sir p. W. (Sur'y, Ch't'sy)
Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur
Withers, Sir John James


Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)
Sueter, Rear-Admiral M. F.
Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount


Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell
Taylor, Vice-Admiral E. A.
Womersley, W. J.


Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Thomas, Major L. B. (King's Norton)
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Salmon, Major I.
Thompson, Luke
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton


Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Thomson, Sir F.



Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)
Thomson, Mitchell-, Rt. Hon. Sir W.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of
Captain Sir George Bowyer and


Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. D.
Train, J.
Sir Victor Warrender.


NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (File, West)
Freeman, Peter
Leonard, W.


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)
Lloyd, C. Ellis


Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher
Gardner, J. P. (Hammersmith, N.)
Logan, David Gilbert


Altchison, Rt. Hon. Craigle M.
George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Longbottom, A. W.


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (Hillsbro')
George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesea)
Longden, F.


Alpass, J. H.
Gill, T. H.
Lovat-Fraser, J. A.


Ammon, Charles George
Gillett, George M.
Lunn, William


Angell, Sir Norman
Glassey, A. E.
Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)


Arnott, John
Gossl[...]ng, A. G.
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)


Attlee, Clement Richard
Gould, F.
MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)


Ayles, Waiter
Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
McElwee, A.


Baker, John (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)
McEntee, V. L.


Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley)
Gray, Milner
McGovern, J. (Glasgow, Shettleston)


Barnes, Alfred John
Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
MacLaren, Andrew


Barr, James
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Maclean, Sir Donald (Cornwall, N.)


Batey, Joseph
Groves, Thomas E.
Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)


Bonn, Rt. Hon. Wedgwood
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Mander, Geoffrey lo M.


Bennett, Sir E. N. (Cardiff, Central)
Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)
Manning, E. L.


Bennett, William (Battersea, South)
Hall, Capt. W. G. (Portsmouth, C.)
Mansfield, W.


Benson, G.
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Zetland)
March, S.


Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)
Harbord, A.
Marcus, M.


Bondfield, Rt. Hon. Margaret
Hardie, David (Rutherglen)
Markham, S. F.


Bowen, J. W.
Hardie, G. D. (Springburn)
Marley, J.


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Harris, Percy A.
Marshall, Fred


Broad, Francis Alfred
Hastings, Dr. Somerville
Mathers, George


Brockway, A. Fenner
Hayes, John Henry
Matters, L. W.


Bromfield, William
Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)
Maxton, James


Bromley, J.
Henderson, Arthur, Junr. (Cardiff, S.)
Messer, Fred


Brooke, W.
Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow)
Middleton, G.


Brothers, M.
Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield)
Mills, J. E.


Brown, C. W. E. (Notts. Mansfield)
Herriotts, J.
Milner, Major J.


Buchanan, G.
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Montague, Frederick


Burgess, F. G.
Hoffman, P. C.
Morgan, Dr. H. B.


Buxton, C. R. (Yorks. W. R. Elland)
Hollins, A.
Morley, Ralph


Caine, Hall-, Derwent
Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Hackney, S.)


Cameron, A. G.
Hunter, Dr. Joseph
Mort, D. L.


Cape, Thomas
Isaacs, George
Muff, G.


Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S. W.)
Jenkins, Sir William
Muggeridge, H. T.


Charleton, H. C.
John, William (Rhondda. West)
Murnin, Hugh


Chater, Daniel
Johnston, Rt. Hon. Thomas
Nathan, Major H. L.


Church, Major A. G.
Jones, Llewellyn-, F.
Naylor, T. E.


Clarke, J. S.
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Newman, Sir R. H. S. O. L. (Exeter)


Cluse, W. S.
Jowitt, Rt. Hon. F. W.
Noel Baker, P. J.


Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Jowitt, Rt. Hon. Sir W. A. (Preston)
Noel-Buxton, Baroness (Norfolk, N.)


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Kelly, W. T.
Oldfield, J. R.


Cove, William G.
Kennedy, Rt. Hon. Thomas
Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston)


Cripps, Sir Stafford
Kenworthy Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M
Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley)


Daggar, George
Kinley, J.
Owen, Major G. (Carnarvon)


Dalton, Hugh
Kirkwood, D.
Palin, John Henry.


Davies, D. L. (Pontypridd)
Knight, Holford
Palmer, E. T.


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Lang, Gordon
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)


Day, Harry
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Perry, S. F.


Denman, Hon. R. D.
Lathan, G. (Sheffield, Park)
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.


Dukes, C.
Law, Albert (Bolton)
Phillips, Dr. Marlon


Duncan, Charles
Law, A. (Rossendale)
Picton-Turbervill, Edith


Ede, James Chuter
Lawrence, Susan
Pole, Major D. G.


Edmunds, J. E.
Lawrle, Hugh Hartley (Stalybridge)
Potts, John S.


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle)
Price, M. P.


Edwards, E. (Morpeth)
Leach, W.
Quibell, D. J. K.


Egan, W. H.
Lee, Frank (Derby, N. E.)
Ramsay, T. B. Wilson


Elmley, Viscount
Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern)
Raynes, W. R.


Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univ.)
Lees, J.
Richards, R.




Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)
Walker, J.


Riley, Ben (Dewsbury)
Smith, Lees-, Rt. Hon. H. B. (Keighley)
Wallace, H. W.


Riley, F. F. (Stockton-on-Tees)
Smith, Rennle (Penistone)
Watkins, F. C.


Ritson, J.
Smith, Tom (Pontetract)
Watson, w. M. (Dunfermline)


Roberte, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich)
Smith, W. R. (Norwich)
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Romeril, H. G.
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah


Rosbotham, D. S. T.
Snowden, Thomas (Accrington)
Wellock, Wilfred


Rowson, Guy
Sorensen, R.
Weish, James (Paisley)


Russell, Richard John (Eddisbury)
Stamford, Thomas W.
West, F. R.


Salter, Dr. Alfred
Stephen, Campbell
Westwood, Joseph


Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)
Strauss, G. R.
Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)


Samuel, H. walter (Swansea, West)
Sullivan, J.
Whiteley, William (Blaydon)


Sanders, W. S.
Sutton, J. E.
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Sandham, E.
Taylor R. A. (Lincoln)
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Sawyer, G. F.
Taylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S. W.)
Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)


Scott James
Thorne, W. (West Ham. Plaistow)
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Sexton, Sir James
Thurtle, Ernest
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Shepherd, Arthur Lewis
Tillett, Ben
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Sherwood, G. H.
Tinker, John Joseph
Wilson, J. (Oldham)


Shield, George William
Toole, Joseph
Wilson R. J. (Jarrow)


Shillaker, J. F.
Tout, W. J.
Winterton, G. E.(Leicester, Loughb'gh)


Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)
Townend, A. E.
Wise, E. F.


Simmons, C. J.
Turner, Sir Ben
Wood, Major McKenzie (Banff)


Sinclair, Sir A. (Caithness)
Vaughan, David
Young, R. S. (Islington, North)


Sinkinson, George
Viant, S. P.



Sitch, Charles H.
Walkden, A. G.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES—




Mr. B. Smith and Mr. Paling.


Question, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution," put, and agreed to.

FINANCE BILL.

[7TH ALLOTTED DAY.]

Considered in Committee. [Progress, 16th June.]

[Mr. DUNNICO in the Chair.]

CLAUSE 21.—(Tax not to be included among impositions payable by lessees.)

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: I beg to move, in page 21, line 32, after the word "before," to insert the words "or after."

Sir T. INSKIP: On a point of Order. May I submit to you, Mr. Dunnico, that this Amendment, which stands on the Order Paper in the name of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, is out of order. Clause 21 is the Clause which provides, as it stands at present, that the provision contained in a lease granted before the passing of the Act that any taxes shall be payable by the lessee shall not apply in respect of the tax. That is very clear and intelligible. A similar provision appears in Sub-section (3) of Clause 15, of which the marginal note is "Recoupment of tax to leaseholders by lessors." Sub-section (3) provides that the provisions of the first two Sub-sections of that Clause shall
have effect notwithstanding any agreement made before the passing of the Act. That Clause, I respectfully submit, would necessarily be construed by the courts as not having any effect upon the validity of the agreement made after the passing of the Act. It invalidates an agreement made before the passing of the Act unless, as an implication, it leaves valid an agreement made after the passing of the Act. Now we come to Clause 21, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer proposes to invalidate agreements which, by necessary implication, I have suggested to you are validated by Clause 15, Subsection (3). I, therefore, suggest that at this stage it is too late to put in those words, and that the proper place would have been to insert them in Clause 15 (3). For those reasons, I beg to submit that the Amendment is out of order.

The SOLICITOR - GENERAL (Sir Stafford Cripps): The hon. and learned Member for Fareham (Sir T. Inskip), I think, has not observed that Clauses 15 and 21 deal with two different subject matters. Clause 15 (3) says:
The provisions of the last two foregoing Sub-sections shall have effect notwithstanding any agreement,
and deals with cases where the owner who is a lessee hands back part of the tax to his lessor, that is to say, where he is the holder of over a 50 years' lease. Clause 21 deals with precisely the opposite case, where an owner attempts to hand down the tax to someone who has a
shorter term of lease under him. Therefore, the two provisions deal with quite different cases, the one where the tax is being handed back up the scale, and the other where it is being handed down the scale.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: It is a difficult thing for the lay mind to decide fine legal points of this kind. Taking a plain man's view of this question, my own interpretation is that Sub-section (3) of Clause 15 is related to the two previous Sub-sections dealing with leases of 50 years and upwards; Clause 21 appears to me to be more of a general nature and contains provisions of a much wider character. I do not think that this Amendment is invalidated by reason of the provision in Clause 15 and that I could on those grounds rule it out of order.

Sir T. INSKIP: Having regard to the very short time at our disposal, it will probably be better to accept your Ruling. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] I am not going to be deterred even by the mirth of hon. Gentlemen opposite, who appear to be quite incapable of understanding any point.

7.0 p.m.

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: I will endeavour to be as brief as possible in explaining the point which is covered by the Amendment. The matter which is referred to here, as also the matter referred to in Clause 15, deals with the incidence of the tax. The procedure of the Bill is that the burden is placed upon the owner, who is defined in Clause 26 as either a freeholder or a leaseholder holding for a period originally granted of over 50 years. In the event of a lease, it is proposed, and it has already been decided in Clause 15, that the leaseholder shall have the right to pass back the tax, according to certain principles, to the superior leaseholder or to the freeholders. Sub-section (3) of Clause 15 provides that the intention of Parliament shall not be thwarted by any Clause that may be in existing leases. It leaves, in the case of leases made after the passage of the Act, freedom to vary the conditions therein contained. The object of the present Clause as drafted is to deal, not with the case of the owner and his superior landlord, but with the case of the owner and sub-leases which he may grant for shorter periods than 50
years. As the Bill stands, it provides that the intention of Parliament in this respect also shall not be prevented by the existence of any words in the lease granted before the passage of this Measure. Now that would put in on precisely the same footing downwards as it was put upwards in Clause 15, but it was realised that the two cases differed in important respects. In the case of leases of 50 years and upwards, they are matters of considerable moment, skilled advisers would be available, and we may take it for granted that, where a new lease is coming into question, the matter will be thoroughly understood by both sides. In the case, however, of small leases, to a small shopkeeper for example, it often happens that the tenant is not really represented by a skilled adviser, and it is therefore essential that his interests should be safeguarded, and that nothing should be done to his detriment through a misunderstanding of the position. In those circumstances, it was decided to put in the words "or after." Otherwise this is what is likely to happen. It is quite common to have words which say that the lessee shall bear all rates and taxes and this will, of course, put upon the lessee the burden of this tax, contrary to the intention of this Bill. In order to protect the lessee from that, we propose this Amendment and, when the Committee consider the point carefully, they will see the logic of it.

Mr. A. M. SAMUEL: This is a very difficult and immoral Clause and, although I have listened to every word carefully, I am certain the hon. Gentleman himself would be the first to say that it is not possible for any layman to understand it from what he has now told the Committee. He has done his best, but his involved explanation would not be understood by men of average intelligence not trained in the forms of the law. Here we have a Guillotine which will fall on this complicated Clause in a few minutes, instead of our having a couple of hours to discuss it. I shall, therefore, content myself with opposing the Clause by protesting against the Amendment. The word "before" in the Clause is bad enough, as it breaks all previous contracts and upsets the foundation of all good faith,
but to add the word "after is worse. I am inclined to think that, when the Clause was drafted, the Chancellor of the Exchequer did not understand it would mean breaking every contract. We in this country hold by the principle known as a "scrap of paper." The maintenance of good faith between nations and between man and man is the foundation of all morality, and I make my protest as a layman against the breaking of contracts by this Clause.

Sir GERALD HURST: There are two comments I wish to make. The pretence the Minister gave us for this Amendment does not hold water at all. He told us that it was to protect the tenant against bearing the burden of the tax. It cannot have that effect because, in actual fact, the landlord would put the burden of the Land Value Tax on the tenant by increasing the rent, and would thereby evade the intention of the Amendment. Secondly, it might clearly be to the interest of both landlord and tenant to contract out of the burden primarily imposed upon the landlord. There is no certainty at all as to the continuing burden of this site value tax. It may vary at the quinquennium, or the actual scale of the tax may be increased, and so it may be to the interest of both to fix a stable rent which does not vary at all. If a low rent is fixed, it may be to the interest of a tenant that he should bear the burden of the tax which is variable. Liberty of contract is to the interest of both sides, and the defence which the hon. Gentleman has set up has no bearing on the subject.

Mr. J. JONES: When lawyers fall out, there is a chance of honest men coming by their own. In this ease, the hon. and learned Member has just told us that landlords can evade their responsibility to the State with the connivance of the tenant, and that they can enter into bargains behind the back of the State for the purpose of evading their responsibility. That is really what these speeches mean. An Act of Parliament is about to be carried, and in the meantime bargains can be made to evade it. That proposal comes from a party which is supposed to represent the gentlemen of England, who are full of morality and money. As far as we are concerned, it
is fair that, if the land belongs to the people who claim to own it, then they should not put their responsibilities on those who rent the land from them. That is the attitude of the party opposite. The business man or the farmer who rent from a landlord will have the burden shifted on their shoulders. The landlord, through his mouthpiece in this House, says, "If you will only enter into a bargain with me, we will dodge the Government." That is the speech of an expert in the law. Thank God I am not a lawyer! That is the kind of morality which comes from the benches opposite. The worker cannot dodge the tax. He has to pay the bill every time and, when the landlord comes round for the rent every Monday morning, there is no question who is responsible. He cannot dodge it at all yet the clever people opposite, whatever Government may be in office, are able through manipulating the machinery so to rig it up that Phil Garlic pays the tax. We are not clever enough to understand their legal chicanery, but we can see a hole in a ladder as quickly as anyone. As far as we are concerned, all these attempts to dodge taxation do not butter any parsnips. This attempt to dodge taxation is not worthy of those who claim to represent the honour of Britain.

Mr. LLEWELLYN-JONES: I desire, as one of the class to which the hon. Member has just referred, the class of lawyers, to support the Amendment—

Mr. J. JONES: Hear, hear! There are some honest lawyers left.

Mr. LLEWELLYN-JONES: There can be no doubt that, in matters of this kind, lessees or tenants require protection very vitally. Anyone who has had to do with the drafting of leases realises that in most cases the lessee is very largely at the mercy of the lessor. In a large number of cases, where a large estate is let out on leases, the lessee is invariably told by the agent or by the solicitor who acts for the lessor, "This is common form. This is the way all the leases are drawn up and, if you object to it, you do not get the lease." Let me remind the Committee of the type of Clause which is introduced into those leases. A tenant or lessee enters into, a covenant of this
kind "To pay and discharge in addition to the rent all rates, taxes, duties and assessments other than tithe rent charge, and landlord's property tax but including all charges whatsoever whether parliamentary, parochial or of any other description which may occur during the said term imposed on the premises or the landlord or the tenant in respect thereof." Under this Clause, which exists in 99 per cent. of the leases granted, unless the tenant has the protection afforded by Clause 21 of this Bill, he will be at the mercy of the landlord who will pass over

to him the tax imposed under this Bill. I therefore support the Amendment.

Mr. E. BROWN: I rise only because I want to express a suspicion which is in my mind, that these two words may have something to do with the discussion which proceeded yesterday. That is all I wish to say.

Amendment agreed to.

Question put, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 271; Noes, 177.

Division No. 317.]
AYES.
[7.14 p.m.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)
Law, Albert (Bolton)


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Foot, Isaac
Law, A. (Rossendale)


Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher
Freeman, Peter
Lawrence, Susan


Altchison, Rt. Hon. Craigle M.
Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)
Lawrie, Hugh Hartley (Stalybridge)


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (Hillsbro')
Gardner, J. P. (Hammersmith, N.)
Lawson, John James


Alpass, J. H.
George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle)


Ammon, Charles George
George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesea)
Leach, W.


Angell, Sir Norman
Gill, T. H.
Lee, Frank (Derby, NE.)


Arnott, John
Gillett, George M.
Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern)


Aske, Sir Robert
Glassey, A. E.
Lees, J.


Attlee, Clement Richard
Gossling, A. G.
Leonard, W.


Ayles, walter
Gould, F.
Lloyd, C. Ellis


Baker, John (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Logan, David Gilbert


Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley)
Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)
Longbottom, A. W.


Barnes, Alfred John
Gray, Mliner
Longden, F.


Barr, James
Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Lovat-Fraser, J. A.


Benn, Rt. Hon. Wedgwood
Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro' W.)
Lunn, William


Bennett, Sir E. N. (Cardiff, Central)
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)


Bennett, William (Battersea, South)
Groves, Thomas E.
Mac Donald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)


Benson, G.
Grundy, Thomas W.
Mac Donald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)


Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
McElwee, A.


Bondfield, Rt. Hon. Margaret
Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)
McEntee, V. L.


Bowen, J. W.
Hall, Capt. W. G. (Portsmouth, C.)
McGovern, J. (Glasgow, Shettleston)


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Zetland)
MacLaren, Andrew


Broad, Francis Alfred
Harbord, A.
Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)


Brockway, A. Fenner
Hardie, David (Rutherglen)
Manning, E. L.


Bromfield, William
Hardie, G. D. (Springburn)
Mansfield, W.


Bromley, J.
Harris, Percy A.
March, S.


Brooke, W.
Hastings, Dr. Somerville
Marcus, M.


Brothers, M.
Hayes, John Henry
Markham, S. F.


Brown, C. W. E. (Notts, Mansfield)
Healy, Cahir
Marley, J.


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)
Marshall, Fred


Buchanan, G.
Henderson, Arthur, Junr. (Cardiff, S.)
Mathers, George


Burgess, F. G.
Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow)
Matters, L. W.


Buxton, C. R. (Yorks. W. R. Elland)
Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield)
Maxton, James


Caine, Hall-, Derwent
Herriotts, J.
Messer, Fred


Cameron, A. G.
Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth)
Middleton, G.


Cape, Thomas
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Mills, J. E.


Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S. W.)
Hoffman, P. C.
Milner, Major J.


Chater, Daniel
Hollins, A.
Montague, Frederick


Church, Major A. G.
Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)
Morgan, Dr. H. B.


Clarke, J. S.
Hunter, Dr. Joseph
Morley, Ralph


Cluse, W. S.
Isaacs, George
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Hackney, S.)


Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Jenkins, Sir William
Mort, D. L.


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Muff, G.


Cove, William G.
Johnston, Rt. Hon. Thomas
Muggeridgs, H. T.


Cripps, Sir Stafford
Jones, Llewellyn-, F.
Murnin, Hugh


Daggar, George
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)


Dalton, Hugh
Jones, J. J. (West Horn, Silvertown)
Noel Baker, P. J.


Davies, E. C. (Montgomery)
Jones, Rt. Hon. Lelf (Camborne)
Noel-Buxton. Baroness (Norfolk, N.)


Davies, D. L. (Pontypridd)
Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W.
Oldfield, J. R.


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Jowitt, Rt. Hon. Sir W. A. (Preston)
Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston)


Day, Harry
Kedward, R. M. (Kent, Ashford)
Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley)


Denman, Hon. R. D.
Kelly, W. T.
Owen, Major G. (Carnarvon)


Dukes, C.
Kennedy, Rt. Hon. Thomas
Palin, John Henry


Duncan, Charles
Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.
Paling, Wilfrid


Ede, James Chuter
Kirkwood, D.
Palmer, E. T.


Edmunds, J. E.
Knight, Holford
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Lang, Gordon
Perry, S. F.


Edwards, E. (Morpeth)
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Pethick-Lewrence, F. W.


Egan, W. H.
Lathan, G. (Sheffield, Park)
Phillips, Dr. Marlon


Picton-Turbervill, Edith
Shield, George William
Turner, Sir Ben


Pole, Major O. G.
Shillaker, J. F.
Vaughan, David


Potts, John S.
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)
Viant, S. P.


Price, M. P.
Simmons, C. J.
Walkden, A. G.


Pybus, Percy John
Simon, E. D. (Manch'ter. Withington)
Walker, J.


Ouibell, D. J. K.
Sinclair, Sir A. (Caithness)
Wallace, H. W.


Ramsay, T. B. Wilson
Sinkinson, George
Watkins, F. C.


Rathbone, Eleanor
Sitch, Charles H.
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline).


Raynes, W. R.
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Richards, R.
Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah


Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Smith, Lees-, Rt. Hon. H. B. (Keighley)
Wellock, Wilfred


Riley, Ben (Dewsbury)
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)
Weish, James (Paisley)


Riley, F. F. (Stockton-on-Tees)
Smith, Tom (Pontefract)
West, F. R.


Ritson, J.
Smith, W. R. (Norwich)
Westwood, Joseph


Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich)
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip
Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)


Romeril, H. G.
Snowden, Thomas (Accrington)
Whiteley, William (Blaydon)


Rosbotham, D. t. T.
Sorensen, R.
Wilkinson, Elien C.


Rowson, Guy
Stamford, Thomas W.
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Russell, Richard John (Eddisbury)
Stephen, Campbell
Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)


Salter, Dr. Alfred
Strauss, G. R.
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)
Sullivan, J.
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Samuel, H. walter (Swansea, West)
Sutton, J. E.
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Sanders, W. S.
Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln)
Wilson, J. (Oldham)


Sandham, E.
Taylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S. W.)
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Sawyer, G. F.
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)
Winterten, G. E.(Leicester, Loughb'gh)


Scott, James
Tillett, Ben
Wise, E. F.


Sexton, Sir James
Tinker, John Joseph
Wood, Major McKenzie (Banff)


Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.
Toole, Joseph
Young, R. S. (Islington, North)


Shepherd, Arthur Lewis
Tout, W. J.



Sherwood, G. H.
Townend, A. E.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—




Mr. Thurtle and Mr. Charleton.


NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel.
Croom-Johnson, R. P.
Leighton, Major B. E. P.


Ainsworth, Lieut.-Col. Charles
Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)
Lewis, Oswald (Colchester)


Albery, Irving James
Cunliffe-Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Little, Graham-, Sir Ernest


Allen, Lt.-Col. Sir William (Armagh)
Dalkeith, Earl of
Llewellin, Major J. J.


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Dalrymple-White, Lt.-Col. Sir Godfrey
Locker- Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey


Astor, Viscountess
Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. (Hertford)
Lockwood, Captain J. H.


Atholl, Duchess of
Davies Maj. Geo. F.(Somerset, Yeovil)
Long, Major Hon. Eric


Atkinson, C.
Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
McConnell, Sir Joseph


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley (Bewdley)
Dawson, Sir Philip
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F.
Macquisten, F. A.


Balniel, Lord
Dugdale, Capt. T. L.
Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)


Bellairs, Commander Carlyon
Eden, Captain Anthony
Margesson, Captain H. D.


Betterton, Sir Henry B.
Elliot, Major walter E.
Marjoribanks, Edward


Bevan, S. J. (Holborn)
Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)
Meller, R. J.


Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman
Everard, W. Lindsay
Merriman, Sir F. Boyd


Boothby, R. J. G.
Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Milne, Wardlaw-, J. S.


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Ferguson, Sir John
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)


Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart
Fleiden, E. B.
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B.


Bowyer, Captain Sir George E. W.
Ford, Sir P. J.
Morrison, W. S. (Glos., Cirencester)


Bracken, B.
Forestier-Walker, Sir L.
Muirhead, A. J.


Braithwaite, Major A. N.
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)


Briscoe, Richard George
Galbraith, J. F. W.
Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G.(Ptrsf'ld)


Broadbent, Colonel J.
Ganzonl, Sir John
Oman, Sir Charles William C.


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)
Gault, Lieut.-Col. A. Hamilton
O'Neill, Sir H.


Buchan, John
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Gower, Sir Robert
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)


Bullock, Captain Malcolm
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Perkins, W. R. D.


Butler, R. A.
Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)
Peto, Sir Bas[...] E. (Devon, Barnstaple)


Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Gritten, W. G. Howard
Pownall, Sir Assheton


Campbell, E. T.
Guinness, Rt. Hon. walter E.
Ramsbotham, H.


Carver, Major W H.
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Remer, John R.


Castle Stewart, Earl of
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Reynolds, Col. Sir James


Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'te'y)


Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth, S.)
Hartington, Marquess of
Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)


Chadwick, Capt. Sir Robert Burton
Haslam, Henry C.
Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir J. A. (Birm., W.)
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)
Herbert, Sir Dennis (Hertford)
Salmon, Major I.


Chapman, Sir S.
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Christie, J. A.
Home, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Clydesdale, Marquess of
Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.
Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney. N.)
Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. D.


Cohen, Major J. Brunei
Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer
Savery, S. S.


Colfox, Major William Philip
Hurd, Percy A.
Sheppersen, Sir Ernest Whittome


Colman, N. C. O.
Hurst, Sir Gerald B.
Skelton, A. N.


Colville, Major D. J.
Hutchison, Maj. Gen. Sir R.
Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)


Cooper, A. Duff
Inskip, Sir Thomas
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kine'dine, C.)


Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)
Smith, Carington. Neville W.


Cowan, D. M.
Lamb, Sir J. Q.
Smithers, Waldron


Cranborne, Viscount
Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.
Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)


Crichton-Stuart, Lord C.
Latham, H. P. (Scarboro' & Whitby)
Southby, Commander A. R. J.


Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Law, Sir Alfred (Derby, High Peak)
Spender-Clay, Colonel H.




Stanley, Hon. O. (Westmorland)
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur
Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Sueter, Rear-Admiral M. F.
Wallace, Capt. P. E. (Hornsey)
Withers, Sir John James


Taylor, Vice-Admiral E. A.
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert
Womersley, W. J.


Thomas, Major L. B. (King's Norton)
Warrender, Sir Victor
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Thompson, Luke
Waterhouse, Captain Charles
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton


Thomson, Sir F.
Wayland, Sir William A.



Thomson, Mitchell-, Rt. Hon. Sir W.
Wells, Sydney R.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES—


Train, J.
Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)
Sir George Penny and Major the Marquess of Titchfield.

CLAUSE 22.—(Power of Commissioners to obtain information.)

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The first Amendment which I call stands in the name of the hon. and learned Member for Central Nottingham (Mr. O'Connor)—In page 22, line 4, to leave out the word "area."

Earl WINTERTON: I beg to move, in page 22, line 4, to leave out the word "area."
I understand the Government are going to accept this Amendment.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: We are prepared to accept the Amendment on the understanding that on the Report stage we put in the words "including other details necessary for identification."

Amendment agreed to.

Sir T. 1NSKIP: I beg to move, in page 22, line 10, to leave out paragraphs (d) and (e).
These and the other paragraphs in the Sub-section empower the Commissioners to demand a number of particulars, some of which are reasonable, but the last two groups of particulars specified in paragraphs (d) and (e) appear to us to be wholly unreasonable and most oppressive. They go a great deal further than is necessary for the collection of the tax. They empower the Commissioners to obtain information as to:
any other matters as to which particulars are required by the Commissioners for the discharge of their functions under this Part of this Act.
We might just as well go back to the days of the Star Chamber and the extraction of teeth in order to obtain taxes. The Government might as well say that it is necessary to extract somebody's teeth in order to get the Land Tax. These paragraphs show the spirit

in which the Bill has been drafted. They show the instructions which the Chancellor of the Exchequer gave to the officials responsible for drafting the Bill. It is impossible in the time at our disposal to deal with the details of these two proposals. Nothing could indicate better than these two paragraphs the difficulties under which the Committee is labouring in respect of the Bill. I can only hope that the Solicitor-General who, apart from his official duty of defending the Bill, does retain, I know, a sense of decency in respect of these matters, will meet us by saying that he is prepared either to leave out paragraphs (d) and (e) or to amend them. Solely because time is not available to enable us to have any reasonable discussion about the matter, I move to leave out these two paragraphs and we throw ourselves, in the circumstances, on the tender mercies of the Solicitor-General.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: The position as regards paragraph (d) is that the Government are prepared not to go back beyond 1923, which was the date when these particulars ceased to be given to the valuation officers. As regards paragraph (e), we are prepared to limit it to the question of tithe and matters contained in the First Schedule. That is to say, the other matters on which particulars may be required will be tithe and the matters contained in the First Schedule.

Sir T. INSKIP: I suppose we have to take what we can get in the time at our disposal, but with a view to marking our sense of the insufficiency even of the concessions that have been made, we are bound to divide.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 270; Noes, 180.

Division No. 318.]
AYES.
[7.30 p.m.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Altchilson, Rt. Hon. Craigle M.
Ammon, Charles George


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (Hillsbro')
Angell, Sir Norman


Addlson, Rt. Hon. Dr. Chistopher
Alpass, J. H.
Arnott, John


Aske, Sir Robert
Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow)
Perry, S. F.


Attlee, Clement Richard
Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield)
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.


Ayles, walter
Herriotts, J.
Phillips, Dr. Marlon


Baker, John (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth)
Picton-Turbervill, Edith


Barnes, Alfred John
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Pole, Major D. G.


Barr, James
Hoffman, P. C.
Potts, John S.


Benn, Rt. Hon. Wedgwood
Hollins, A.
Price, M. P.


Bennett, Sir E. N. (Cardiff, Central)
Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)
Pybus, Percy John


Bennett, William (Battersea, South)
Hunter, Dr. Joseph
Quibell, D. J. K.


Benson, G.
Isaacs, George
Ramsay, T. B. Wilson


Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)
Jenkins, Sir William
Rathbone, Eleanor


Bendfield, Rt. Hon. Margaret
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Raynes, W. R.


Bowen, J. W.
Johnston, Rt. Hon. Thomas
Richards, R.


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Jones, Llewellyn-, F.
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)


Broad, Francis Alfred
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Riley, Ben (Dewsbury)


Brockway, A. Fenner
Jones, Rt. Hon Leif (Camborne)
Riley, F. F. (Stockton-on-Tees)


Bromfield, William
Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W.
Ritson, J.


Bromley, J.
Jowitt, Rt. Hon. Sir W. A. (Preston)
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich)


Brooke, W.
Kedward, R. M. (Kent, Ashtord)
Romeril, H. G.


Brothers, M.
Kelly, W. T.
Rosbotham, D. S. T.


Brown, C. W. E. (Notts. Mansfield)
Kennedy, Rt. Hon. Thomas
Rowson, Guy


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Kenworthy, Lt. Com. Hon. Joseph M.
Russell, Richard John (Eddisbury)


Buchanan, G.
Kirkwood, D.
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Burgess, F. G.
Knight, Holford
Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)


Buxton, C. R. (Yorks. W. R. Elland)
Lang, Gordon
Samuel, H. walter (Swansea, West)


Caine, Hall-, Derwent
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Sanders, W. S.


Cameron, A. G.
Lathan, G. (Sheffield, Park)
Sandham, E.


Cape, Thomas
Law, Albert (Bolton)
Sawyer, G F


Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S. W.)
Law, A. (Rossendale)
Scott, James


Chater, Daniel
Lawrence, Susan
Sexton, Sir James


Church, Major A. G.
Lawrie, Hugh Hartley (Stalybridge)
Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.


Clarke, J. S.
Lawson, John James
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis


Cluse, W. S.
Lawther W. (Barnard Castle)
Sherwood, G. H.


Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Leach, W.
Shield, George William


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Lee, Frank (Derby. N. E.)
Shillaker, J. F.


Cove, William G.
Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern)
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Cowan, D. M.
Lees, J.
Simmons, C. J.


Cripps, Sir Stafford
Leonard, W.
Simon, E. D. (Manch'ter, Withington)


Daggar, George
Lloyd, C. Ellis
Sinclair, Sir A. (Caithness)


Dalton, Hugh
Logan, David Gilbert
Sinkinson, George


Davies, D. L. (Pontypridd)
Longbottom, A. W.
Sitch, Charles H.


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Longden, F.
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)


Day, Harry
Lovat-Fraser, J. A.
Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)


Denman, Hon. R. D.
Lunn, William
Smith, Lees-, Rt. Hon. H. B. (Keighley)


Dudgeon, Major C. R.
Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)
Smith, Reunie (Penistene)


Dukes, C.
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)
Smith, Tom (Pontefract)


Duncan, Charles
MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)
Smith, W. R. (Norwich)


Ede, James Chuter
Macdonald, Sir M. (Inverness)
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


Edmunds, J. E.
McElwee, A.
Snowden, Thomas (Accrington)


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
McEntee, V. L.
Sorensen, R.


Edwards, E. (Morpeth)
McGovern, J. (Glasgow, Shettleston)
Stamford, Thomas W.


Egan, W. H.
MacLaren, Andrew
Stephen, Campbell


Foot, Isaac
Maclean, Sir Donald (Cornwall, N.)
Strauss, G. R.


Freeman, Peter
Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)
Sullivan, J.


Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)
Manning, E. L.
Sutton, J. E.


Gardner, J. P. (Hammersmith, N.)
Mansfield, W.
Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln)


George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
March, S.
Taylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S. W.)


George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesea)
Marcus, M.
Thorne, W. (West Ham. Plalstow)


Gill, T. H.
Markham, S. F.
Tillett, Ben


Gillett, George M.
Marley, J.
Tinker, John Joseph


Glassey, A. E.
Marshall, Fred
Toole, Joseph


Gossling, A. G.
Mathers, George
Tout, W. J.


Gould, F.
Matters, L. W.
Townend, A. E.


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Maxton, James
Turner, Sir Ben


Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)
Messer, Fred
Vaughan, David


Gray, Mliner
Middleton, G.
Viant, S. P.


Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Colne).
Mills, J. E.
Walkden, A. G.


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Milner, Major J.
Walker, J.


Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro' W.)
Montague, Frederick
Wallace, H. w.


Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Morgan, Dr. H. B.
Watkins, F. C.


Groves, Thomas E.
Morley, Ralph
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Grundy, Thomas W.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Hackney, S.)
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Mort, D. L.
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah


Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)
Muff, G.
Wellock, Wilfred


Hall, Capt. W. G. (Portsmouth, C.)
Muggeridge, H. T.
Weish, James (Paisley)


Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Zetland)
Murnin, Hugh
West, F. R.


Harbord, A.
Noel Baker, P. J-
Westwood, Joseph


Hardie, David (Rutherglen)
Noel-Buxton, Baroness (Norfolk, N.)
Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)


Hardie, G. D. (Springburn)
Oldfield, J. R.
Whiteley, William (Blaydon)


Harris, Percy A.
Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston)
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Hastings, Dr. Somerville
Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley)
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Hayes, John Henry
Palin, John Henry
Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)


Healy, Cahir
Paling, Wilfrid
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)
Palmer, E. T.
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Henderson, Arthur, Junr. (Cardiff, S.)
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Wilson C. H. (Sheffield. Attercilfle)




Wilson, J. (Oldham)
Wise, E. F.
TELLERS FOR THE AIES.—


Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)
Wood, Major McKenzie (Banff)
Mr. Charleton and Mr. Thurtle.


Winterton, G. E.(Leicester, Loughb'gh)
Young, R. S. (Islington, North)



NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Dugdale, Capt. T. L.
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)


Ainsworth, Lieut.-Col. Charles
Eden, Captain Anthony
Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G. (Ptrst'ld)


Albery, Irving James
Elliot, Major walter E.
Oman, Sir Charles William C.


Allen, Lt.-Col. Sir William (Armagh)
Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s-M.)
O'Neill, Sir H.


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Everard, W. Lindsay
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William


Astor, Viscountess
Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)


Atholl, Duchess of
Ferguson, Sir John
Perkins, W. R. D.


Atkinson, C.
Fielden, E. B.
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley (Bewdley)
Ford, Sir P. J.
Pownail, Sir Assheton


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Forestier-Walker, Sir L.
Ramsbotham, H.


Balniel, Lord
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Remer, John R.


Beaumont, M. W.
Galbraith, J. F. W.
Reynolds, Col. Sir James


Bellairs, Commander Carlyon
Ganzonl, Sir John
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'te'y)


Betterton, Sir Henry B.
Gauit, Lieut.-Col, A. Hamilton
Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)


Bevan, S. J. (Holborn)
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell


Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman
Glyn, Major R. G. C.
Ross, Ronald D.


Boothby, R. J. G.
Gower, Sir Robert
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Salmon, Major I.


Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart
Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Bowyer, Captain Sir George E. W.
Gritten, W. G. Howard
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Bracken, B.
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart


Braithwaite, Major A. N.
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. D.


Briscoe, Richard George
Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)
Savery, S. S.


Broadbent, Colonel J.
Hartington, Marquess of
Shepperson, Sir Ernest Whittome


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)
Haslam, Henry C.
Skelton, A. N.


Buchan, John
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield. Hallam)


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Herbert, Sir Dennis (Hertford)
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)


Bullock, Captain Malcolm
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.
Smith-Carington, Neville W


Butler, R. A.
Hore-Belisha, Leslie
Smithers, Waldron


Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Home, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.
Somervllie, D. G. (Willesden, East)


Campbell, E. T.
Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.
Southby, Commander A. R. J.


Carver, Major W. H.
Hudson, Capt. A. u. M. (Hackney, N.)
Spender-Clay, Colonel H.


Castle Stewart, Earl of
Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer
Stanley, Hon. O. (Westmorland)


Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Hurd, Percy A.
Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur


Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R.(Prtsmth, S.)
Hurst, Sir Gerald B.
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Chadwick, Capt. Sir Robert Burton
Hutchison, Maj.-Gen, Sir R.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral M. F.


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir J. A.(Birm., W.)
Inskip, Sir Thomas
Taylor, Vice-Admiral E. A.


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)
Thomas, Major L. B. (King's Norton)


Chapman, Sir S.
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Thompson, Luke


Christie, J. A.
Lamb, Sir J. O.
Thomson, Sir F.


Clydesdale, Marquess of
Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.
Thomson, Mitchell-, Rt. Hon. Sir w.


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Latham, H. P. (Scarboro' & Whitby)
Train, J.


Cohen, Major J. Brunei
Law, Sir Alfred (Derby, High Peak)
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement.


Colfox, Major William Philip
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon


Colman, N. C. D
Lewis, Oswald (Colchester)
Wallace, Capt. D. E. (Hornsey)


Colville, Major D. J.
Little, Graham-, Sir Ernest
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert


Cooper, A. Duff
Llewellin, Major J. J.
Warrender, Sir Victor


Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.
Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Cranborne, Viscount
Lockwood, Captain J. H.
Wayland, Sir William A.


Crichton-Stuart, Lord C.
Long, Major Hon. Eric
Wells, Sydney R.


Croft, Brigadler-General Sir H.
McConnell, Sir Joseph
Williams, Charles (Devon. Torquay)


Croom-Johnson, R. P.
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Windsor-dive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Culverwell, C. T, (Bristol, West)
Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Cunliffe-Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Margesson, Captain H. D.
Withers, Sir John James


Dalkeith, Earl of
Marjoribanks, Edward
Wolmer, Rt. Hen. Viscount


Dalrymple-White, Lt.-Col. Sir Godfrey
Meller, R. J.
Womersley, W. J.


Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. (Hertford)
Merriman, Sir F. Boyd
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Davies, Maj. Geo. F.(Somerset, Yeovil)
Milne, Wardlaw-, J. S.
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton


Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B



Dawson, Sir Philip
Morrison, W. S. (Glos., Cirencester)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES—


Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F.
Muirhead, A. J.
Sir George Penny and Major the Marquess of Titchfield.

It being after half-past Seven of the Clock, the CHAIRMAN proceeded, pursuant to the Order of the House of the 4th June, successively to put forthwith the Questions on any Amendments moved by the Government of which notice had been, given, and the Questions necessary to

dispose of the business to be concluded at half-past Seven of the Clock at this day's Sit tiny.

Question put, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 280; Noes, 180.

Division No. 319.]
AYES.
[7.39 p.m.


Adamson, Rt. Han. W. (Fife, West)
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Middleton, G.


Adamton, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Groves, Thomas E.
Mills, J. E.


Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher
Grundy, Thomas W.
Milner, Major J.


Aitchison, Rt. Hon. Craigle M.
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Montague, Frederick


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (Hillsbro')
Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)
Morgan, Dr. H. B.


Alpass, J. H.
Hall, Capt. W. G. (Portsmouth, C.)
Morley, Ralph


Ammon, Charles George
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Zetland)
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Hackney, S.)


Angel[...] Sir Norman
Harbord, A.
Mort, D. L.


Arnott, John
Hardie, David (Rutherglen)
Muff, G.


Aske, Sir Robert
Hardie, G. D. (Springburn)
Muggeridge, H. T.


Attlee, Clement Richard
Harris, Percy A.
Murnin, Hugh


Ayles, walter
Hastings, Dr. Somerville
Nathan, Major H. L.


Baker, John (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
Hayes, John Henry
Noel Baker, P. J.


Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley)
Healy, Cahir
Noel-Buxton, Baroness (Norfolk, N.)


Barnes, Alfred John
Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)
Oldfield, J. R.


Barr, James
Henderson, Arthur, Junr. (Cardiff, S.)
Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston)


Batey, Joseph
Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow)
Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley)


Benn, Rt. Hon. Wedgwood
Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield)
Owen, Major G. (Carnarvon)


Bennett, Sir E. N. (Cardiff, Central)
Herriotts, J.
Owen, H. F. (Hereford)


Bennett, William (Battersea, South)
Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth)
Palin, John Henry


Benson, G.
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Paling, Wilfrid


Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)
Hoffman, P. C.
Palmer, E. T.


Bondfield, Rt. Hon. Margaret
Hollins, A.
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)


Bowen, J. w.
Hore-Belisha, Leslie
Perry, S. F.


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.


Broad, Francis Alfred
Hunter, Dr. Joseph
Phillips, Dr. Marlon


Brockway, A. Fenner
Isaacs, George
Picton-Turbervill, Edith


Bromfield, William
Jenkins, Sir William
Pole, Major D. G.


Bromley, J.
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Potts, John S.


Brooke, W.
Johnston, Rt. Hon. Thomas
Price, M. P.


Brothers, M.
Jones, Llewellyn-, F.
Pyb[...]s, Percy John


Brown, C. W. E. (Notts. Mansfield)
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Quibell, D. J. K.


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Ramsay, T. B. Wilson


Buchanan, G.
Jones, Rt. Hon. Lelf (Camborne)
Rathbone, Eleanor


Burgess, F. G.
Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W.
Raynes, W. R.


Buxton, C. R. (Yorks. W. R. Elland)
Jowitt, Rt. Hon. Sir W. A. (Preston)
Richards, R.


Caine, Hall-, Derwent
Kedward, R. M. (Kent, Ashford)
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)


Cameron, A. G.
Kelly, W. T.
Riley, Ben (Dewsbury)


Cape, Thomas
Kennedy, Rt. Hon. Thomas
Riley, F. F. (Stockton-on-Tees)


Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S. W.)
Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.
Ritson, J.


Chater, Daniel
Kirkwood, D.
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich)


Church, Major A. G.
Knight, Holford
Romeril, H. G.


Clarke, J. S.
Lang, Gordon
Rosbotham, D. S. T.


Cluse, W. S.
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Rowson, Guy


Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Lathan, G. (Sheffield, Park)
Russell, Richard John (Eddisbury)


Cocks, Frederick Seymour.
Law, Albert (Bolton)
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Cove, William G.
Law, A. (Rossendale)
Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)


Cowan, D. M.
Lawrence, Susan
Samuel, H. walter (Swansea, West)


Cripps, Sir Stafford
Lawrle, Hugh Hartley (Stalybridge)
Sanders, W. S.


Daggar, George
Lawson, John James
Sandham, E.


Dallas, George
Lawther W. (Barnard Castle)
Sawyer, G. F.


Dalton, Hugh
Leach, W.
Scott James


Davies, E. C. (Montgomery)
Lee, Frank (Derby, N. E.)
Sexton, Sir James


Davies, D. L. (Pontypridd)
Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern)
Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughten)
Lees, J.
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis


Day, Harry
Leonard, W.
Sherwood, G. H.


Denman, Hon. R. D.
Lloyd, C. Edit
Shield, George William


Dudgeon, Major C. R.
Logan, David Gilbert
Sh[...]aker, J. F.


Dukes, C.
Longbottom, A. W.
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Duncan, Charles
Longden, F.
Simmons, C. J.


Ede, James Chuter
Lovat-Fraser, J. A.
Simon, E. D. (Manch'ter, Withington)


Edmunds, J. E
Lunn, William
Sinclair, Sir A. (Caithness)


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)
Sinkinson, George


Edwards, E. (Morpeth)
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)
Sitch, Charles H.


Egan, W. H.
MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)


Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)
Macdonald, Sir M. (Inverness)
Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)


Foot, Isaac
McElwee, A.
Smith, Lees-, Rt. Hon. H. B. (Keighley)


Freeman, Peter
McEntee, V. L.
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)


Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)
McGovern, J. (Glasgow, Shettleston)
Smith, Tom (Pontefract)


Gardner, J. P. (Hammersmith, N.)
MacLaren, Andrew
Smith, W. R. (Norwich)


George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Maclean, Sir Donald (Cornwall, N.)
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesea)
Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)
Snowden, Thomas (Accrington)


Gill, T. H.
Manning, E. L.
Sorensen, R.


Gillett, George M.
Mansfield, W.
Stamford, Thomas W.


Glassey, A. E.
M arch, S.
Stephen, Campbell


Gossling, A. G.
Marcus, M.
Strauss, G. R.


Gould, F.
Markham, S. F.
Sullivan, J.


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Marley, J.
Sutton, J. E


Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)
Marsha[...], Fred
Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln)


Gray, Milner
Mathers, George
Taylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S. W.)


Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Colne)
Matters, L. w.
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plalstow)


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Maxton, James
Tillett, Ben


Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro' W.)
Messer, Fred
Tinker, John Joseph




Toole, Joseph
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)
Williams Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Tout, W. J.
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Townend, A. E.
Wellock, Wilfred
Wilson C. H. (Sheffield, Atterc[...]lffe)


Turner, Sir Ben
Weish, James (Paisley)
Wilson, J. (Oldham)


Vaughan, David
West, F. R.
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Viant, S. P.
Westwood, Joseph
Winterton, G. E.(Leicester, Loughb'gh)


Walkden, A. G.
Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)
Wise, E. F.


Walker, J.
Whiteley, William (Blaydon)
Wood, Major McKenzie (Banff)


Wallace, H. W.
Wilkinson, Ellen C.
Young, R. S. (Islington, North)


Watkins, F. C.
Williams, David (Swansea, East)



Watson, W. M. (Dunlermline).
Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—




Mr. Charleton and Mr. Thurtle.




NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Dugdale, Capt. T. L.
Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G. (Ptrsf'ld)


Ainsworth, Lieut.-Col. Charles
Eden, Captain Anthony
Oman, Sir Charles William C.


Albery, Irving James
Elliot, Major walter E.
O'Neill, Sir H.


Allen, Lt.-Col. Sir William (Armagh)
Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-S-M.)
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Everard, W. Lindsay
Penny, Sir George


Astor, Viscountess
Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)


Atholl, Duchess of
Ferguson, Sir John
Perkins, W. R. D.


Atkinson, C.
Fermoy, Lord
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley (Bewdley)
Fir-Hen. E. B.
Pownall, Sir Assheton


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Ford, Sir P. J.
Ramsbotham, H.


Balniel, Lord
Forestler-Walker, Sir L.
Remer, John R.


Beaumont, M. W.
Fremantle, lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Reynolds, Col. Sir James


Bellairs, Commander Carlyoa
Galbraith, J. F. W.
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'te'y)


Betterton, Sir Henry B.
Ganzonl, Sir John
Roberta, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)


Bevan, S. J. (Holborn)
Gauit, Lieut.-Col. A. Hamilton
Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell


Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Ross, Ronald D.


Boothby, R. J. G.
Glyn, Major R. G. C.
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Bourne, Captain Robert Crott
Gower, Sir Robert
Salmon, Major I.


Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Bowyer, Captain Sir George E. W.
Grenfell, Edward C (City of London)
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Bracken, B.
Gritten, W. G. Howard
Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart


Braithwaite, Major A. N.
Guinness, Rt. Hon. walter E.
Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. D.


Briscoe, Richard George
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Savery, S. S.


Broadbent, Colonel J.
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Sheppsrson, Sir Ernest Whittome


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Nawb'y)
Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)
Skelton, A. N.


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Hartington, Marquess of
Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)


Buchan, John
Haslam, Henry C.
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)


Bullock, Captain Malcolm
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Butler, R. A.
Herbert, Sir Dennis (Hertford)
Smithers, Waldron


Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Home, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Campbell, E. T.
Howard, Bury, Colonel C. K.
Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)


Carver, Major W. H.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney. N.)
Southby, Commander A. R. J.


Castle Stewart, Earl of
Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer
Spender-Clay, Colonel H.


Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Hurd, Percy A.
Stanley, Hon. O. (Westmorland)


Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth, S.)
Hurst, Sir Gerald B.
Steel Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur


Chadwick, Capt. Sir Robert Burton
Inskip, Sir Thomas
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir. J. A. (Birm., W.)
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)
Sueter, Rear-Admiral M. F.


Chamberlain, Rt Hon. N. (Edgbatton)
Lamb, SV J. Q.
Taylor, Vice-Admiral E. A.


Chapman, Sir S.
Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.
Thomas, Major L. B. (King's Norton)


Christie, J. A.
Latham, H. p. (Scarboro' & Whitby)
Thompson, Luke


Clydesdale, Marquess of
Law, Sir Alfred (Derby, High Peak)
Thomson, Sir F.


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Thomson, Mitchell-, Rt. Hon. Sir W.


Cohen, Major J. Brunei
Lewis, Oswald (Colchester)
Titchtield, Major the Marquess of


Colfox, Major William Philip
Little, Graham-, Sir Ernest
Train, J.


Colman, N. C. D.
Llewellin, Major J. J.
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Colville, Major D. J.
Locker-Lampson. Rt. Hon. Godfrey
Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon


Cooper, A. Duff
Lockwood, Captain J. H.
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert


Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.
Long, Major Hon. Eric
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Cranborne, Viscount
McConnell, Sir Joseph
Wayland, Sir William A.


Crichton-Stuart, Lord C.
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Wells, Sydney R.


Crott, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)
Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)


Croom-Jnhnson. R. P.
Margesson, Captain H. D.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)
Marjoribanks, Edward
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Cunliffe-Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Meller, R. J.
Withers, Sir John James


Dalkeith, Earl at
Merriman, Sir F. Boyd
Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount


Dalrymple-White, Lt.-Col. Sir Godfrey
Milne, Wardlaw-, J. S.
Womersley, W. J.


Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. (Hertford)
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Davies, Maj. Geo. F.(Somerset, Yeovil)
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B.
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton


Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
Morrison, W. S. (Glos., Cirencester)



Dawson, Sir Philip
Muirhead, A. J.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F.
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)
Captain Wallace and Sir Victor Warrender.

CLAUSE 23.—(Production to Commissioners of instruments transferring land.)

Amendments made: In page 23, line 6, after the word "Where," insert the words:
in accordance with the provisions of the last foregoing Sub-section.

In line 29, at the end, add the words:
(5) This Section shall come into operation on the first day of September, nineteen hundred and thirty-one."—[The Solicitor-General.]

Question put, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 279; Noes, 180.

Division No. 320.]
AYES.
[7.49 p.m.


Adamson, Rt. Hen. W. (Fife, West)
Gray, M[...]iner
March, S.


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Coine)
Marcus, M.


Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher
Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Markham, S. F.


Altchison, Rt. Hon. Cralgie M.
Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro' W.)
Marley, J.


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (H[...]sbro')
Griffiths, T, (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Marshall, Fred


Alpass, J. H.
Groves, Thomas E.
Mathers, George


Ammon, Charles George
Grundy, Thomas W.
Matters, L. W.


Angell, Sir Norman
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Maxton, James


Arnott, John
Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)
Messer, Fred


Aske, Sir Robert
Hall, Capt. W. P. (Portsmouth, C.)
Middleton, G.


Attlee, Clement Richard
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Zetland)
Mills, J. E.


Ayles, walter
Harbord, A.
Milner, Major J.


Baker, John (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
Hardie, David (Rutherglen)
Montague, Frederick


Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley)
Hardie, G. D. (Springburn)
Morgan, Dr. H. B.


Barnet, Alfred John
Harris, Percy A.
Morley, Ralph


Barr, James
Hastings, Dr. Somerville
Morris, Rhys Hopkins


Batey, Joseph
Hayes, John Henry
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Hackney, S.)


Benn, Rt. Hon. Wedgwood
Healy, Cahir
Mort, D. L.


Bennett, Sir E. N. (Cardiff, Central)
Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)
Muff, G.


Bennett, William (Battersea, South)
Henderson, Arthur, Junr. (Cardiff, S.)
Muggeridge, H. T.


Benson, G.
Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow)
Murnin, Hugh


Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)
Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield)
Nathan, Major H. L.


Bondfield, Rt. Hon. Margaret
Herriotts, J.
Noel Baker, P. J.


Bowen, J. W.
Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth)
Noel-Buxton. Baroness (Norfolk, N.)


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Oldfield, J. R.


Broad, Francis Alfred
Hoffman, P. C.
Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston)


Brockway, A. Fenner
Hollins, A.
Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley)


Bromfield, William
Hopkin, Daniel
Owen, Major G. (Carnarvon)


Bromley, J.
Hore-Belisha, Leslie
Owen, H. F. (Hereford)


Brooke, W.
Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)
Palin, John Henry


Brothers, M.
Hunter, Dr. Joseph
Paling, Wilfrid


Brown, C. W. E. (Notts, Mansfield)
Isaacs, George
Palmer, E. T.


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Jenkins, Sir William
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)


Buchanan, G.
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Perry, S. F.


Burgess, F. G.
Johnston, Rt. Hon. Thomas
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.


Burgin, Dr. E. L.
Jones, Llewellyns, F.
Phillips, Dr. Marlon


Buxton, c. R. (Yorks. W. R. Elland)
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Picton-Turbervill, Edltb


Caine, Hall-, Derwent
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Pole, Major D. G.


Cameron, A. G.
Jones, Rt. Hon Leif (Camborne)
Potts, John S.


Cape, Thomas
Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W.
Price, M. P.


Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S. W.)
Jowitt, Rt. Hon. Sir W. A. (Preston)
Pybus, Percy John


Chater, Daniel
Kedward, R. M. (Kent, Ashford)
Quibeil, D. J. K.


Church, Major A. G.
Kelly, W. T.
Ramsay, T. B. Wilson


Clarke, J. S.
Kennedy, Rt. Hon. Thomas
Rathbone, Eleanor


Cluse, W. S.
Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.
Raynes, W. R.


Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Kirkwood, D.
Richards, R.


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Knight, Holford
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)


Cove, William G.
Lang, Gordon
Riley, Ben (Dewsbury)


Daggar, George
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Riley, F. F. (Stockton-on-Tees)


Dallas, George
Lathan, G. (Sheffield, Park)
Ritson, J.


Dalton, Hugh
Law, Albert (Bolton)
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich)


Davies, E. C. (Montgomery)
Law, A (Rossendale)
Romeril, H. G.


Davies, D. L. (Pontypridd)
Lawrence, Susan
Rosbotham, D. S. T.


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Lawrie, Hugh Hartley (Stalybridge)
Rowson, Guv


Day, Harry
Lawson, John James
Russell, Richard John (Eddisbury)


Denman, Hon. R. D.
Lawther, W, (Barnard Cattle)
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Dudgeon, Major C. R.
Leach, W.
Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)


Dukes, C.
Lee, Frank (Derby, N. E.)
Samuel, H. walter (Swansea, West)


Duncan, Charles
Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern)
Sanders, W. S.


Ede, James Chuter
Lees, J.
Sandham, E.


Edmunds, J. E.
Leonard, W.
Sawyer, G. F.


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Lloyd, C. Ellis
Scott, James


Edwards, E. (Morpeth)
Logan, David Gilbert
Sexton, Sir James


Egan, W. H.
Longbottom, A. W.
Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.


Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)
Longden, F.
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis


Foot, Isaac
Lovat-Fraser, J. A.
Sherwood, G. H.


Freeman, Peter
Lunn, William
Shield, George William


Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)
Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)
Shillaker, J. F.


Gardner, J. P. (Hammersmith, N.)
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)
Simmons, C. J.


George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesea)
McElwee, A.
Sinclair, Sir A. (Caithness)


Gill, T. H.
McEntee, V. L.
Sinkinson, George


Gillett, George M.
McGovern, J. (Glasgow, Shettleston)
Sitch, Charles H.


Glassey, A. E.
MacLaren, Andrew
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhlthe


Gossling, A. G.
Maclean, Sir Donald (Cornwall, N.)
Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)


Gould, F.
Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)
Smith, Lees-, Rt. Hon. H. B. (Keighley)


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Manning, E. L.
Smith, Rennle (Penistone)


Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)
Mansfield, W.
Smith, Tom (Pontefract)


Smith, W. R. (Norwich)
Townend, A. E.
Whiteley, William (Blaydon)


Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip
Turner, Sir Ben
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Snowden, Thomas (Accrington)
Vaughan, David
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Sorensen, R.
Viant, S. P.
Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)


Stamford, Thomas W.
Walkden, A. G.
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Stephen, Campbell
Walker, J.
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Strauss, G. R.
Wallace, H. W.
Wilson C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Sullivan, J.
Watkins, F. C.
Wilson, J. (Oldham)


Sutton, J. E.
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln)
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)
Winterton, G. E.(Leicester, Loughb'gh)


Taylor, w. B. (Norfolk, S. W.)
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah
Wise, E. F.


Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)
Wellock, Wilfred
Wood, Major McKenzie (Banff)


Tillett, Ben
Weish, James (Paisley)
Young, R. S. (Islington, North)


Tinker, John Joseph
West, F. R.



Toole, Joseph
Westwood, Joseph
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Tout, W. J.
Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)
Mr. Thurtle and Mr. Chareton.


NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Dugdale, Capt. T. L.
Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G.(Ptrsl'ld)


Ainsworth, Lieut.-Col. Charles
Eden, Captain Anthony
Oman, Sir Charles William C.


Albery, Irving James
Elliot, Major walter E.
O'Neill, Sir H.


Allen, Lt.-Col. Sir William (Armagh)
Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Everard, W. Lindsay
Penny, Sir George


Astor, Viscountess
Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)


Atholl, Duchess of
Ferguson, Sir John
Perkins, W. R. D.


Atkinson, C.
Fermoy, Lord
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley (Bewdley)
Fielden, E. B.
Pownall, Sir Assheton


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Ford, Sir P. J.
Ramsbotham, H.


Balniel, Lord
Forestler-Walker, Sir L.
Remer, John R.


Beaumont, M. W.
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Reynolds, Col. Sir James


Bellairs, Commander Carlyon
Galbraith, J. F. W.
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'te'y)


Betterton, Sir Henry B.
Ganzonl, Sir John
Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)


Bevan, S. J. (Holborn)
Gauit, Lieut.-Col. A. Hamilton
Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell


Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Ross, Ronald D.


Boothby, R. J. G.
Glyn, Major R. G. C.
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Gower, Sir Robert
Salmon, Major I.


Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Bowyer, Captain Sir George E. W.
Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Bracken, B.
Gritten, W. G. Howard
Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart


Braithwaite, Major A. N.
Guinness, Rt. Hon. walter E.
Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. D.


Briscoe, Richard George
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Savery, S. S.


Broadbent, Colonel J.
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Shepperson, Sir Ernest Whittome


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)
Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)
Skelton, A. N.


Buchan, John
Hartington, Marquess of
Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Haslam, Henry C.
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)


Bullock, Captain Malcolm
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Butler, R. A.
Herbert, Sir Dennis (Hertford)
Smithers, Waldron


Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Campbell, E. T.
Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.
SomervilIe, D. G. (Willesden, East)


Carver, Major W. H.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M.(Hackney, N.)
Southby, Commander A. R. J.


Castle Stewart, Earl of
Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer
Spender-Clay, Colonel H.


Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Hurd, Percy A.
Stanley, Hon. O (Westmorland)


Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R.(Prtsmth, S.)
Hurst, Sir Gerald B.
Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur


Chadwick, Capt. Sir Robert Burton
Inskip, Sir Thomas
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir J. A. (Birm., W.)
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)
Sueter, Rear-Admiral M. F.


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)
Lamb, Sir J. Q.
Taylor, Vice-Admiral E. A.


Chapman, Sir S.
Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.
Thomas, Major L. B. (King's Norton)


Christie, J. A.
Latham, H. P. (Scarboro' & Whitby)
Thompson, Luke


Clydesdale, Marquess of
Law, Sir Alfred (Derby, High Peak)
Thomson, Sir F.


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Thomson, Mitchell-, Rt. Hon. Sir W.


Cohen, Major J. Brunei
Lewis, Oswald (Colchester)
Train, J.


Colfox, Major William Philip
Little, Graham-, Sir Ernest
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Colman, N. C. D.
Llewellin, Major J. J.
Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon


Colville, Major D. J.
Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert


Cooper, A. Duff
Lockwood, Captain J. H.
Warrender, Sir Victor


Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.
Long, Major Hon. Eric
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Cowan, D. M.
McConnell, Sir Joseph
Wayland, Sir William A.


Cranborne, Viscount
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Wells, Sydney R.


Crichton-Stuart, Lord C.
Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)
Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)


Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Margesson, Captain H. D.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut-Colonel George


Croom-Johnson, R. P.
Marjoribanks, Edward
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)
Meller, R. J.
Withers, Sir John James


Cunliffe-Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Merriman, Sir F. Boyd
Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount


Dalkeith, Earl of
Milne, Wardlaw-, J. S.
Womersley, W. J.


Dalrymple-White, Lt.-Col. Sir Godfrey
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Davies, Maj. Geo. F.(Somerset, Yeovll)
Mon8ell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B.
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton


Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)



Dawson, Sir Philip
Morrison, W. S. (Glos., Cirencester)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES—


Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F.
Muirhead, A. J.
Captain Wallace and Major the Marquess of Titchfield.

Clause 24 (Service of documents), ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 25.—(Miscellaneous provisions.)

Question put, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 277; Noes, 177.

Division No. 321.]
AYES.
[7.59 p.m.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)
Manning, E. L.


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Gray, Mliner
Mansfield, W.


Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Colne)
March, S.


Altchison, Rt. Hon. Craigle M.
Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Marcus, M.


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (Hillsbro')
Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middiesbro' W.)
Markham, S. F.


Alpass, J. H.
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Marley, J.


Ammon, Charles George
Groves, Thomas E.
Marshall, Fred


Angell, Sir Norman
Grundy, Thomas W.
Mathers, George


Arnott, John
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Matters, L. W.


Aske, Sir Robert
Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)
Maxton, James


Attlee, Clement Richard
Hall, Capt. W. G. (Portsmouth, C.)
Messer, Fred


Ayles, walter
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Zetland)
Middleton, G.


Baker, John (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
Harbord, A.
Mills, J. E.


Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley)
Hardie, David (Rutherglen)
Milner, Major J.


Barnes, Alfred John
Hardie, G. D. (Springburn)
Montague, Frederick


Barr, James
Harris, Percy A.
Morgan, Dr. H. B.


Batey, Joseph
Hastings, Dr. Somervllie
Morley, Ralph


Benn, Rt. Hon. Wedgwood
Hayes, John Henry
Morris, Rhys Hopkins


Bennett, Sir E. N. (Cardiff, Central)
Healy, Cahir
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Hackney, S.)


Bennett, William (Battersea, South)
Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)
Mort, D. L.


Benson, G.
Henderson, Arthur, Junr. (Cardiff, S.)
Muff, G.


Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)
Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow)
Muggeridge, H. T.


Bondfield, Rt. Hon. Margaret
Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield)
Murnin, Hugh


Bowen, J. W.
Herriotts, J.
Nathan, Major H. L.


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth)
Noel Baker, P. J.


Broad, Francis Alfred
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Noel-Buxton, Baroness (Norfolk, N.)


Brockway, A. Fenner
Hoffman, P. C.
Oldfield, J. R.


Bromfield, William
Hollins, A.
Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston)


Bromley, J.
Hopkin, Daniel
Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley)


Brooke, W.
Hore-Belisha, Leslie.
Owen, Major G. (Carnarvon)


Brothers, M.
Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)
Owen, H. F. (Hereford)


Brown, C. W. E. (Notts, Mansfield)
Hunter, Dr. Joseph
Palin, John Henry.


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Isaacs, George
Paling, Wilfrid


Buchanan, G.
Jenkins, Sir William
Palmer, E. T.


Burgess, F. G.
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)


Burgin, Dr. E. L.
Johnston, Rt. Hon. Thomas
Perry, S. F.


Buxton, C. R. (Yorks. W. R. Elland)
Jones, Llewellyn-, F.
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.


Caine, Hall-, Derwent
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Phillips, Dr. Marion


Cameron, A. G.
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Picton-Turbervill, Edith


Cape, Thomas
Jones, Rt. Hon. Lelf (Camborne)
Pole, Major D. G.


Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S. W.)
Jowitt, Rt. Hon. Sir W. A. (Preston)
Potts, John S.


Chater, Daniel
Kedward, R. M. (Kent, Ashford)
Price, M. P.


Church, Major A. G.
Kelly, W. T.
Pybus, Percy John


Clarke, J. S.
Kennedy, Rt. Hon. Thomas
Quibell, D. J. K.


Cluse, W. S.
Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.
Ramsay, T. B. Wilson


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Kirkwood, D.
Rathbone, Eleanor


Cove, William G.
Knight, Holford
Raynes, W. R.


Daggar, George
Lang, Gordon
Richards, R.


Dallas, George
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)


Dalton, Hugh
Lathan, G. (Sheffield, Park)
Riley, Ben (Dewsbury)


Davies, E. C. (Montgomery)
Law, Albert (Bolton)
Riley, F. F. (Stockton-on-Tees)


Davies, D. L. (Pontypridd)
Law, A. (Rossendale)
Ritson, J.


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Lawrence, Susan
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich)


Day, Harry
Lawrle, Hugh Hartley (Stalybridge)
Romeril, H. G.


Denman, Hon. R. D.
Lawson, John James
Rosbotham, D. S. T.


Dudgeon, Major C. R.
Lawther, w. (Barnard Castle)
Rowson, Guy


Dukes, C.
Leach, W.
Russell, Richard John (Eddisbury)


Duncan, Charles
Lee, Frank (Derby, N. E.)
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Ede, James Chuter
Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern)
Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)


Edmunds, J. E.
Lees, J.
Samuel, H. walter (Swansea, West)


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Leonard, W.
Sanders, W. S.


Edwards, E. (Morpeth)
Lloyd, C. Ellis
Sandham, E.


Egan, W. H.
Logan, David Gilbert
Sawyer, G. F.


Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)
Longbottom, A. W.
Scott, James


Foot, Isaac
Longden, F.
Sexton, Sir James


Freeman, Peter
Lovat-Fraser, J. A.
Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.


Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)
Lunn, William
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis


Gardner, J. P. (Hammersmith, N.)
Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)
Sherwood, G. H.


George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Mac Donald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)
Shield, George William


George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesea)
MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)
Shillaker, J. F.


Gill, T. H.
McElwee, A.
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Gillett, George M.
McEntee, V. L.
Simmons, C. J.


Glassey, A. E.
McGovern, J. (Glasgow, Shettleston)
Sinclair, Sir A. (Caithness)


Gossling, A. G.
MacLaren, Andrew
Sinkinson, George


Gould, F.
Maclean, Sir Donald (Cornwall, N.)
Sitch, Charles H.


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)


Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)
Tinker, John Joseph
Westwood, Joseph


Smith, Lees-, Rt. Hon. H. B. (Keighley)
Toole, Joseph
Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)


Smith, Renale (Penistone)
Tout, W. J.
Whiteley, William (Blaydon)


Smith, Tom (Pontefract)
Townend, A. E.
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Smith, W. Ft. (Norwich)
Turner, Sir Ben
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip
Vaughan, David
Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)


Snowden, Thomas (Accrington)
Viant, S. P.
Williams Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Sorensen, R.
Walkden, A. G.
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Stamford, Thomas W.
Walker, J.
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Stephen, Campbell
Wallace, H. W.
Wilson, J. (Oldham)


Strauss, G. R.
Watkins, F. C.
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Sullivan, J.
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)
Winterton, G. E. (Leicester, Lougho'gh)


Sutton, J. E.
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)
Wise, E. F.


Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln)
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah
Wood, Major McKenzie (Banff)


Taylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S. W.)
Wellock, Wilfred
Young, R. S. (Islington, North)


Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plalstow)
Weish, James (Paisley)



Tillett, Ben
West, F. R.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES—




Mr. Thurtle and Mr. Charleton.


NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Dugdale, Capt. T. L.
Oman, Sir Charles William C.


Ainsworth, Lieut.-Col. Charles
Eden, Captain Anthony
O'Neill. Sir H.


Albery, Irving James
Elliot, Major Waiter E.
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William


Allen, Lt.-Col. Sir William (Armagh)
Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-S. M.)
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Everard, W. Lindsay
Perkins, W. R. D.


Astor, Viscountess
Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)


Atholl, Duchess of
Ferguson, Sir John
Pownall, Sir Assheton


Atkinson, C.
Fermoy, Lord
Ramsbotham, H.


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley (Bewdley)
Fielden, E. B.
Remer, John R.


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Ford, Sir P. J.
Reynolds, Col. Sir James


Balniel, Lord
Forestler-Walker, Sir L.
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch't'sy)


Beaumont M. W.
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesail)


Bellaire, Commander Carlyon
Galbraith, J. F. W.
Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell


Betterton, Sir Henry B.
Ganzonl, Sir John
Ross, Ronald D.


Bevan, S. J. (Holborn)
Gault, Lieut.-Col. A. Hamilton
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Salmon, Major I.


Boothby, R. J. G.
Gower, Sir Robert
Samuel, A. M, (Surrey, Farnham)


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart
Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)
Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart


Bowyer, Captain Sir George E. W.
Gritten, W. G. Howard
Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. D.


Bracken, B.
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Savery, S. S.


Braithwaite, Major A. N.
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Shepperson, Sir Ernest Whittome


Briscoe, Richard George
Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)
Skelton, A. N.


Broadbent, Colonel J.
Hartington, Marquess of
Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Nowb'y)
Haslam, Henry C.
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Buchan, John
Herbert, Sir Dennis (Hertford)
Smithers, Waldron


Bullock, Captain Malcolm
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Butler, R. A.
Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.
Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)


Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Southby, Commander A. R. J.


Campbell, E. T.
Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer
Spender-Clay, Colonel H.


Carver, Major W. H.
Hurd, Percy A.
Stanley, Hon. O. (Westmorland)


Castle Stewart, Earl of
Hurst, Sir Gerald B.
Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur


Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Inskip, Sir Thomas
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R.(Prtsmth, S.)
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)
Sueter, Rear-Admiral M. F.


Chadwick, Capt. Sir Robert Burton
Lamb, Sir J. Q.
Taylor, Vice-Admiral E. A.


Chamberlain, Rt. H n. Sir J. A. (Birm., W.)
Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.
Thomas, Major L. B. (King's Norton)


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)
Latham, H. P. (Scarboro' & Whitby)
Thompson, Luke


Chapman, Sir S.
Law, Sir Alfred (Derby, High Peak)
Thomson, Sir F.


Christie, J. A.
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Thomson, Mitchell-, Rt. Hon. Sir W.


Clydesdale, Marquess of
Lewis, Oswald (Colchester)
Train, J.


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Little, Graham-, Sir Ernest
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Cohen, Major J. Brunei
Llewellin, Major J. J.
Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyan


Colfox, Major William Philip
Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey
Wallace, Capt. D. E. (Hornsey)


Colman, N. C. D.
Lockwood, Captain J. H.
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert


Colville, Major D. J.
Long, Major Hon. Eric
Warrender, Sir Victor


Cooper, A. Duff
McConnell, Sir Joseph
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Courtauld, Major J. S.
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Wayland, Sir William A.


Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.
Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)
Wells, Sydney R.


Cranborne, Viscount
Margesson, Captain H. D.
Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)


Crichton-Stuart, Lord C.
Marjoribanks, Edward
Windsor-dive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Meller, R. J.
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Croom-Johnson, R. P.
Merriman, Sir F. Boyd
Withers, Sir John James


Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)
M[...]ne, Wardlaw., J. s.
Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount


Dalkeith, Earl of
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Womersley, W. J.


Dalrymple-White, Lt.-Col. Sir Godfrey
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B.
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Davies, Maj. Geo. F.(Somerset, Yeovil)
Morrison, W. S. (Glos., Cirencester)
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton


Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
Muirhead, A. J.



Dawson, Sir Philip
Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G.(Ptrsf'ld)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F.
O'Connor, T. J.
Sir George Penny and Major Marquess of Titchfield.


Question put, and agreed to.

Question, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again," put, and agreed to.—[Mr. T. Kennedy.]

Committee accordingly report Progress; to sit again this day.

FINANCE [ADVANCE TO ROAD FUND].

Considered in Committee under Standing Order No. 71A.

[Mr. DUNNICO in the Chair.]

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That, for the purpose of any Act of the present Session relating to finance, it is expedient—
(i) to authorise the Treasury at any time within the current financial year to advance to the Road Fund out of the Consolidated Fund (in addition to any advances made to the Road Fund under Section twenty-seven of the Finance Act, 1928), such further sums, not exceeding in the aggregate nine million pounds, as may be required for the purpose of making any payments falling to be made out of the Road Fund on account of expenditure incurred in respect of the construction or improvement of roads within the meaning of the Development and Road Improvement Funds Act, 1909, which cannot be met out of the income of that Fund, and to provide for the repayment to the Exchequer out of the Road Fund of any sums so advanced together with interest thereon;
(ii) to authorise the Treasury to borrow by means of terminable annuities for a term not exceeding nine years or by the issue of other securities (being securities repayable not later than the thirty-first day of March, nineteen hundred and forty-one) for the purpose of providing money for the issue of sums out of the Consolidated Fund as aforesaid, or for the repayment to that fund of all or any part of any sum so issued or for paying off any securities issued as aforesaid:
(iii) to provide for the payment out of the Consolidated Fund of any terminable annuities granted, and the principal of and interest on any securities issued, under this Resolution."—[King's Recommendation signified.']—[Mr. Herbert Morrison.]

The MINISTER of TRANSPORT (Mr. Herbert Morrison): Perhaps I ought to explain shortly the purpose of this Money Resolution which is necessary in order that the Committee of the Whole House may deal with Clause 31 of the Finance Bill. The Resolution enables the Treasury to advance to the Road Fund a sum not exceeding £9,000,000 during the current financial year. The Treasury under the
Finance Act, 1928, has power to advance sums to the Road Fund, which must be paid back during the financial year in which they are borrowed—temporary sums, in order to enable the Road Fund to meet its obligations, having regard to the fact that the major part of the income of the Road Fund accrues during the last three months of the financial year, whereas the expenditure is incurred before then. In view of the magnitude of the operations of the Ministry of Transport and the local authorities, in connection with highway and bridge construction this year, it is necessary that additional powers should be sought because it will not be practicable for the Road Fund to repay the entire sum during the current financial year.
The reason why power had to be sought for temporary borrowings was what is usually described as the "raid on the Road Fund" which was conducted by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) when he was Chancellor of the Exchequer. It will be remembered that he first took £7,000,000 and then took £12,000,000. In view of the fact that the Road Fund would have been in difficulties in that financial year, this power of temporary borrowing had to be given. In fact, that power was given and has been exercised from time to time. It is estimated that during the financial year 1931–32 the existing power under the Finance Act, 1928, for temporary borrowings, to be repaid during the financial year, will have to be exercised to the extent of roughly £14,000,000. That will take place, as I say, under the Finance Act, 1928, as temporary borrowings. The power that we seek by this Money Resolution and by Clause 31 is an additional power to borrow on a more permanent basis up to the sum of £9,000,000, which must be paid back within the prescribed period. That is, of course, on the assumption that the estimates prove correct, and we have every belief that that should be the case.
It will be seen that the expenditure is spread more or less evenly over the whole financial year, whereas the bulk of the income from motor taxation accrues in the last three months of the financial year. As I say, before this temporary borrowing power became necessary, the Road Fund could handle its problems by the sums Carried
forward and accumulations from previous years, and it must be remembered that on the original establishment of the Road Fund it was just this situation which we are now facing that was contemplated. The view then was that an endeavour should be made to husband the resources of the fund in the better times in order that material sums should be available in the times when unemployment was existing or times when additional work required to be done. In fact, Section 18 of the Development and Road Improvement Funds Act, 1909, provides:
In approving, executing, or making advances in respect of the execution of any work under this Act involving the employment of labour on a considerable scale, regard shall be had so far as is reasonably practicable to the general state and prospects of employment.
Under the two programmes which we are now conducting, the total estimated expenditure on the five years' programme will be £27,500,000 and on the trunk road programme £21,000,000. These works will be spread over a period of years, and it is estimated that, apart from the contribution to the schemes being made from the resources of the local authorities, the Road Fund will be called upon to meet expenditure during the current financial year amounting to £4,000,000 in respect of the five years' programme and £3,000,000 in respect of the trunk road programme, or £7,000,000 in all. The road works concerned are not mere relief works; they are works which are necessary, though they would have been carried out later and over a longer period had it not been for the present depressed state of trade. Then, in addition to these special programmes, substantial assistance continues to be given to the highway authorities for annual construction schemes and improvement schemes, for maintenance and so on, and in addition the Road Fund has to contribute annually, under the Local Government Acts of 1929, nearly £6,500,000 towards the general Exchequer contribution to local revenues. In fact, the earmarked sums for various purposes which lie against the Road Fund leave very little margin for sudden expansions of expenditure from the fund arising from a situation such as that with which we are dealing at the present time.
On this particular loan interest, as I say, will be payable, but it is not payable on the temporary advances. With regard to repayment, it is proposed that
the advances will be repayable between the 1st April, 1936, and the 31st March, 1941. An earlier date is not practicable, but on the best estimates that can be made at present, it is expected that after 1935–6, by which date the bulk of the Road Fund contributions in respect of schemes under the five years' and trunk road programmes will have been paid out, there will be a sufficient margin between revenue and expenditure to enable the loans to be repaid. The total expenditure out of the Road Fund this year is estimated to be in the region of £33,000,000. I think that that explains the purpose of the Money Resolution. The third paragraph of the Resolution is in common form, and gives the borrowings the backing of the Consolidated Fund. With that explanation, I hope the Committee will be clear as to the purpose of the Resolution.

Sir WILLIAM MITCHELL-THOMSON: I should like to say at once that we are obliged, and I am sure the whole Committee is obliged, for the very clear explanation which the Minister has given of the purport and intention of the Resolution. None the less, I have to say, and the Committee will understand, that in the circumstances in which we are working it is impossible for us at present to give time to the consideration of this matter. We have two very important definition Clauses and the finance Clause coming in the Finance Bill, and we shall have an opportunity on Clause 31 of returning to this matter again. I do not propose, therefore, to say more now than this, which ought to be said at this stage, that it is quite clear from what the Minister has said that, put shortly, the effect of this provision is to give further facilities to the Road Fund for the purpose of spending money on public works with a view to accelerating construction having regard to the state of employment.
With regard to that, we ought to say at once that we regard this, and this sort of remedy, when considered as a contribution to the solution of the unemployment problem, as being purely derisory. We share that view with the Unemployment Commission, and I would call attention to one sentence of the report of that Commission, which hon. Members will find on page 9. The Commission are dealing with various classes
of industries in which exceptional unemployment is prevalent, and they say:
The causes of the depression in the industries of exceptional unemployment are easy to understand. These industries fall into three broad classes…. There is third, a class of industries, which has been expanding rather than contracting and enjoying in some cases, a high degree of prosperity…. To this class belong building and public works contracting, in which a large expenditure of public money has stimulated employment without preventing unemployment.
That is our case, and that is all that I desire to say at this stage. We do not propose to oppose the Resolution, but we reserve to ourselves the right to discuss this matter, if possible, on Clause 31.

Resolution to be reported To-morrow.

FINANCE [CURRENCY OF SAVINGS CERTIFICATES].

Considered in Committee under Standing Order No. 71A.

[Mr. DUNNICO in the Chair.]

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session relating to finance, it is expedient to authorise the Treasury to prolong the currency of savings certificates."—[King's Recommendation signified.]—[Mr. W. Graham.]

Mr. W. GRAHAM: Members in all parts of the Committee are familiar with the system of Savings Certificates which was instituted in 1916, and the point which is raised by this Financial Resolution is comparatively simple. The object is to give the Treasury power to extend the dates at which these Savings Certificates must be repaid. There are three series of these certificates. The first series was introduced or issued in 1916 for the period from that year to 1922. That period was extended, and under the Finance Act of 1926 it was again extended and it became due to expire on the 31st March, 1932. The amount of principal and accrued interest on the first series', which fell due to be repaid on 31st March, 1932, would be approximately £150,000,000. Of course, it would be inconvenient, if not impracticable, to repay such sums to large numbers of people who, quite apart from that, would wish to continue these certificates as they have done in the past. A second series of
certificates was issued in 1922–23, and, as the existing provision runs, they are due to expire on the 30th September, 1933. On that date the amount of principal and accrued interest outstanding would be £57,000,000. Then there is the third series, that is the present series, so to speak, and the amount of principal and interest outstanding, if I remember aright, at the end of last year was probably about £255,000,000.
The object of this Resolution is simply to give the Government, through the Treasury, power to extend the dates of repayment. As regards the first series, which is perhaps the series with which we are concerned, the suggestion is that it should be extended to 1940 because by that time these certificates will have had a life of 24 years, and quite plainly it will be desirable at that date that they should be converted or repaid. The Financial Resolution is sufficiently elastic to enable the Government, through the Treasury, to deal with the later series, and to extend the dates as may be thought desirable from time to time. I think that I need not say more regarding this Motion, because this incentive to thrift is one that has fortunately commended itself to all sections of the community, and it is desirable that this elasticity for the Treasury should be obtained in this way.

Resolution to be reported To-morrow.

FINANCE BILL.

Again considered in Committee.

[Mr. DUNNICO in the Chair.]

CLAUSE 26.—(Definition of owner.)

Sir G. HURST: I beg to move, in page 25, line 13, to leave out paragraph (a).
Clause 26 is a very important Clause of the Bill, because it defines the owner on whom, under Clause 14, the Land Value Tax is chargeable, and the aim of the Amendment is to object to the language used in paragraph (a), on the ground that, although there may be quite true and sound conceptions underlying it, the paragraph in its present form will inflict a great deal more injustice on individuals than it will do justice to them. As I understand it, the conception underlying the paragraph is this: there may be cases where the lessee for
a term of years may have a larger interest in the land than the freeholder, and in such a case it is a fair and proper thing that the lessee should be made chargeable with the Land Value Tax. It is obvious that if a lessee has a term of 999 years and pays, perhaps, a very small annual rate, he would be a proper person to be charged with the tax, the value of the freehold reversion being very small indeed. The test of the justice or the injustice of charging the lessee is surely the unexpired portion of the term, and not the date on which the lease happens to have been granted. If this paragraph imposed the liability for the tax upon the lessee whose lease has still 50 years to run, there would be little reason to object to it. In its present form, however, it imposes a liability for the tax upon a lessee holding the estate on any lease which was originally granted for a term exceeding 50 years, and in other cases the freeholder is liable.
I should like to put to the Solicitor-General cases where grave injustice may result from the language as used in this paragraph. Take the case of a lessee who holds under a 99 years lease granted in the thirties of the last century. He has two, three, or four years' interest in the property, and at the end of that time he may be under very grave liability to the reversioner who will come into possession and take full advantage of any improvements in the land during the period of the lease. A lessee who has simply three or four years to run in that way has a far less beneficial interest in the land than the reversioner who is going to enter in in three or four years time, yet the liability for the land tax is imposed on the lessee and not upon the freeholder. I ask the Solicitor-General to contrast that case with the case of a lease which has been recently granted for, say, 49 years. In that case it is quite clear that the lessee's beneficial interest, which is going to run for nearly 50 years from now, is very much greater than the beneficial interest of the lessee holding a term which is almost expired, yet in the case of a 49 years' lease granted before the passing of this Bill the freeholder will be liable for the tax, and not the lessee. In fact, under the Amendment of the Solicitor-General two Clauses back, it will be impossible in a case like that for the freeholder to throw the burden on the lessee by contracting out of the Bill.
The contrast is an eloquent one, and shows that there may be many cases of injustice especially in the case of old 99 years leases which are about to expire, and I suggest that the test of liability should be the unexpired duration of the lease rather than the duration of the term, which was the subject of a grant which may have taken place 100 years ago. If I conceive the meaning of this paragraph correctly, exactly the same criticism might be made against the last two and a half lines of this Sub-section:
If there are two or more such leases, the estate owner in respect of the term which will first expire.
If I understand that aright, this language might apply to the case of an original lease for 999 years and an under-lease for 99 years. Let us take the case where the under-lease will expire in five or six years time. It is quite clear that the beneficial interest of the present holder of the under-lease is very small compared with that of the superior lessee, who will shortly re-enter and will have the benefit of the rest of the 999 years lease. In a case of that sort the test should be the unexpired duration of his beneficial interest. The position as between the under-lessee and the lessee in those circumstances is much more analogous to the case of the man who is lessee for five or seven years holding under a freeholder. The Solicitor-General would never dream in those circumstances of making the lessee liable, and in my submission the position of the under-lessee and the lessee there is really analogous to that of a short term lease and a freehold. I am not quarrelling with the motive underlying this paragraph, which is clearly a fair one, namely, that there are leasehold interests which are practically tantamount to freehold interests, in which cases the lessee ought to bear the burden of the Land Tax; but there are many cases where that would be unfair. This paragraph is, if I may say so rather roughly and crudely put together, and wants dissecting so as to open the gates for readjustment in the hard cases which may arise in the circumstances which I have explained.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: This is naturally a matter to which we have given a great deal of thought, because, as the hon. and learned Gentleman has said, there are two ways in which this
matter can be dealt with. We can either take as a criterion the original length of the lease, or else take as the criterion the unexpired term of the lease at the particular date at which it is sought to charge the owner with the tax. The first thing on which we are at one is that there are obviously cases where the lessee is the proper person to be termed the owner for the purposes of this Bill; but the real question is whether we should more suit the actual facts of the case by making the criterion the original length of the lease or taking the unexpired term. The reasons which have actuated us in adopting the course which we are taking are, roughly, these. First of all, the length of the lease originally granted is to a great extent a criterion of the sort of quality or quantity of ownership which the lessee gets; that is to say, in ordinary practice leases which run for over 50 years—and there are very few over 50 years except for 60 years or 99 years—are, as a rule, rather in the nature of building leases—not always, of course, but the others are very rare. If we go below 50 years there is nothing very much before we come to 21 years. Between 21 years and 50 years there seems to be a gap in which we very seldom get a lease. I think the lease which the hon. and learned Gentleman mentions of 49 years would be a very exceptional lease indeed. A lease of 21 years clearly does not seem to give the lessee any real quality of ownership, and therefore we felt obliged to go beyond 21 years up to 50 years.
If we come to the position where the original lease must have been over 50 years—or for 99 years and with 50 years unexpired, having both those qualifications—we reach this difficulty, which we think is a very serious anomaly and one which really militates against the system of the unexpired term. There would be a lease of 60 years running. For the first 10 years the owner would be the lessee, at the end of the tenth year, although there were 50 years unexpired and all the incidents of the tenure were precisely the same, he would cease to be the owner and the lessor would become the owner. So long as he remains the owner under a lease over 50 years all the incidents of his tenure, all his powers of control being precisely and exactly the same, it is difficult to see any reason why, during the currency of that lease, you should
alter the incidence of the tax, because nothing has happened in the rights of the respective parties so long as the lease continues to run, and the continuity, as it were, of the ownership or the part of the ownership which lies in the lessee, is really undisturbed until the lease expires. Therefore, it seemed to us that it was better to take as the criterion the length of the lease, which gives a sort of criterion of the quality of ownership which the lessee has, and so long as that quality of ownership continues, that is, during the term of the lease, we should continue to treat him as being in the first case the owner upon whom the assessments will be made and the tax charged-That is the reason, and in our submission it is a valid reason, why this system is better than dealing with the unexpired term of the lease, and I hope, with that explanation, the hon. and learned Member will appreciate that we have really considered this subject as well as we could and will think that the conclusion we have come to is, after all, a wise one.

Sir BOYD MERRIMAN: While we thank the Solicitor-General for his explanation of the reasons which actuated him in the choice between two courses, it must be acknowledged that the test taken is an arbitrary one. I was a little astonished for personal reasons to hear the Solicitor-General say that in ordinary circumstances there are no leases between 60 and 21 years.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: No I said there were a good many 50-year leases.

Sir B. MERRIMAN: As it happens, I know very intimately a lease of 41 years.

The SOLICITOR - GENERAL: Oh, there are a number, of course.

Sir B. MERRIMAN: And I daresay that that particular lease is typical on that particular estate of other leases which have been granted. It will be a little difficult to explain to the man who has a lease for 99 years of which only three years are to run that he is the owner, and therefore liable for the Land Value Tax, and to tell him that on the other hand a man who has a lease for 41 years, of which 40 years are still to run is not to be liable for the tax but that the freeholder is to be liable. I am quite sure the Solicitor-General will agree, when I put those two cases side by side that it is an anomaly which it will be very difficult to explain to the
parties concerned, and I will leave it at that so far as the ownership of the lease is concerned. Chief rents and ground rents are a form of investment procurable at a certain number of years' purchase, according to the state of the market. There might be one or more ground rents in addition to the original ground rent created by sub-leases of the original building lease. If the head lease was for 50 years or thereabouts—a period selected by the Government as being typical of building leases—the subleases might well be for a term of under 50 years. Is it not the fact—I hope the Solicitor-General will correct me if I am wrong—that this might create an arbitrary distinction as to the incidence of the tax between one ground rent and another on the one hand, and between certain ground rents and chief rents on the other?

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: I do not think it will make a difference between a ground rent on a 99 years' lease or a chief rent which is not, in fact, a rent at all. The cases contemplated are over 50 years, and therefore this Section will not make any difference on that point. It cannot make any difference so long as it is a lease, and it does not matter whether it is a lease for a chief rent or a ground rent.

Sir B. MERRIMAN: You are taking 50 years as typical. I have given instances of leases under 50 years at slightly different rents. There will be, or there may be a period well over 40 years to run, and there will be a different incidence of the tax in the one case and not in the other as between the ground landlord of the lease above or below 50 years. What conceivable ground is there for making an arbitrary line which really will affect the security of those who hold the ground rent, or the chief rent as the case may be, in one of the categories I have put, who may be the fifth, or the tenth removed from the original owner? I hope the Solicitor-General will see that there is some substance in my point.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: I agree that it is a point of substance, but the position would he this: Where you buy a ground rent and the lease has 50 years unexpired, you would pay the tax, but the next year, when owing to effluxion of time there would be only 49 years to run, you would not pay because you would
be dealing with the term which was unexpired. Under the Bill, there will be a far greater degree of security, because you will know that in every lease of a certain nature granted for more than 50 years, this incidence attaches, but under the Amendment during the currency of every lease granted for more than 50 years there will come a time when, so to speak, the guillotine will fall, and there will be a change in the incidence of the land tax. I hope the hon. and learned Member for Rusholme (Sir B. Merriman) will look at the matter from that point of view.

Sir B. MERRIMAN: The Solicitor-General has given a perfectly reasonable answer on the point of this Amendment, and I feel quite sure that the hon. and learned Gentleman appreciates that I was dealing with the arbitrary nature of the 50 years' limit. I hope I have made it clear that that was the point to which I was directing my remarks, and I think that that was what the Solicitor-General admitted was a point of substance, although he answered it by dealing with this particular Amendment. Nevertheless, my point remains, and I think it has not been dealt with.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: I am sorry to continue this rather exiguous discussion, between, my hon. and learned Friend and myself. I really thought that he was chiefly concerned at the moment with the question whether it should be a 50-year lease or a lease with 50 years unexpired. That was the point put forward by the hon. and learned Member who moved the Amendment, and I was addressing myself to that point. As regards the arbitrary limit of 50 years, of course any line that is drawn must be arbitrary; it has to be drawn somewhere. I have stated the reasons for drawing it at 50 years. That seemed to be about the nearest that one could get to the point of difference between the lease of a house and a ground rent. From the experience which has accumulated, it seemed that there are very few leases between 21 years and 50 years, while after 50 you get a few at 60, a few at 70, and then some at 90, and as a whole those between 50 years and 90 years are really ground rents.

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I have only been able to be present during part of this discussion, but to that part I have
listened with very great interest. I am bound to say that I have been much impressed by the arguments of the Solicitor-General, both on the question as to whether the criterion should be the whole term of the lease or the portion unexpired, and on the point raised by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rusholme (Sir B. Merriman), as to what length of lease should constitute the dividing point. It is very difficult to say where the dividing point should come, and, while it seems to me that there is a great deal in the argument of the Solicitor-General, it is clear that there may be, not only great awkwardness, but quite considerable hardship, wherever the line is drawn or whichever criterion is taken. I do not propose to continue the discussion, because we have so little time

and there are other points that we want to take before the Guillotine falls. I only want to bring forward a protest, and to point out that what the Solicitor-General has said is an extraordinarily good example of one truth, which is that a tax which is inequitable in itself quite clearly leads to hardships, and no apportionment of it as between different people can be fair. As we object to the tax as a whole as being unjustified and inequitable, so we object to this Clause as it stands, because it creates injustices as between one party and another between whom there is no real distinction.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 271; Noes 119.

Division No. 322.]
AYES.
[8.59 p.m.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Dudgeon, Major C. R.
Jones, Llewellyn-, F.


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Dukes, C.
Jonas, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)


Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher
Duncan, Charles
Jones, Rt. Hon. Lelf (Camborne)


Altchison, Rt. Hon. Craigle M.
Ede, James Chuter
Joweitt, Rt. Hon. F. W.


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. v. (Hillsbro')
Edmunds, J. E.
Jowitt, Rt. Hon. Sir W. A. (Preston)


Alpass, J. H.
Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Kedward R. M. (Kent, Ashford)


Ammon, Charlas George
Edwards, E. (Morpeth)
Kelly, W. T.


Angell, Sir Norman
Egan, W. H.
Kennedy, Rt Hon. Thomas


Arnott, John
Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)
Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.


Aske, Sir Robert
Foot, Isaac
Kirkwood, D.


Attlee, Clement Richard
Freeman, Peter
Knight, Holford


Ayles, walter
Gardner, B. W. (West Ham. Upton)
Lang, Gordon


Baker, John (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
Gardner, J. P. (Hammersmith, N.)
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George


Baldwin, Olivar (Dudley)
George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Lathan, G (Sheffield, Park)


Barnes, Alfred John
George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesea)
Law, Albert (Bolton)


Barr, James
Gill, T. H.
Law, A. (Rossendale)


Batey, Joseph
Gillett, George M.
Lawrence, Susan


Bonn, Rt. Hon. Wedgwood
Glassey, A. E.
Lawrle, Hugh Hartley (Stalybridge)


Bennett, Capt. E. N. (Cardiff, Central)
Gossling, A. G.
Lawson, John James


Bennett, William (Battersea, South)
Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle)


Benson, G.
Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm, (Edin., Cent.)
Leach, W.


Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)
Gray, Mliner
Lee, Frank (Derby, N. E.)


Bondfield, Rt. Hon. Margaret
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Colne)
Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern)


Bowen, J. W.
Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Lees, J.


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro' W.)
Leonard, W.


Broad, Francis Alfred
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Lloyd, C. Ellis


Brockway, A. Fenner
Groves, Thomas E.
Logan, David Gilbert


Bromfield, William
Grundy, Thomas W.
Longbottom, A. W.


Bromley, J.
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Longden, F.


Brothers, M.
Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)
Lovat-Fraser, J. A.


Brown, C. W. E. (Notts, Mansfield)
Hall, Capt. W. G. (Portsmouth, C.)
Lunn, William


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Zetland)
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)


Buchanan, G.
Harbord, A.
MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)


Burgess, F. G.
Hardie, David (Rutherglen)
McElwee, A.


Burgin, Dr. E. L.
Hardie, G. D. (Springburn)
McEntee, V. L.


Buxton, C. R. (Yorks. W. R. Elland)
Harris, Percy A.
McGovern, J. (Glasgow, Shettleston)


Caine, Hall-, Derwent
Hastings, Dr. Somerville
MacLaren, Andrew


Cameron, A. G.
Hayes, John Henry
MacNeill-Weir, L.


Cape, Thomas
Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)
Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)


Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S. W.)
Henderson, Arthur, Junr. (Cardiff, S.)
Mander, Geoffrey le M.


Chater, Daniel
Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow)
Manning, E. L.


Church, Major A. G.
Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield.
Mansfield, W.


Clarke, J. S.
Herriotts, J.
March, S.


Cluse, W. S.
Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth)
Marcus, M.


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Marley, J.


Cove, William G.
Hoffman, P. C.
Marshall, Fred


Cowan, D. M.
Hollins, A.
Mathers, George


Cripps, Sir Stafford
Hopkin, Daniel
Maxton, James


Daggar, Georgs
Hore-Belisha, Leslie.
Messer, Fred


Dallas, George
Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)
Middleton, G.


Dalton, Hugh
Hunter, Dr. Joseph
Mills, J. E.


Davies, E. C. (Montgomery)
Isaacs, George
Milner, Major J.


Davies, D. L. (Pontypridd)
Jenkins, Sir William
Montague, Frederick


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Morgan, Dr. H. B.


Denman, Hon. R. D.
Johnston, Rt. Hon. Thomas
Morley, Ralph


Morris, Rhys Hopkins
Ritson, J.
Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln)


Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich)
Taylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S. W.)


Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Hackney, S.)
Romeril, H. G.
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)


Morrison, Robart C. (Tottenham, N.)
Rosbotham, D. S. T.
Tillett, Ben


Mort, D. L.
Rowson, Guy
Tinker, John Joseph


Muff, G.
Russell, Richard John (Eddisbury)
Toole, Joseph


Muggeridge, H. T.
Samuel, H. walter (Swansea, West)
Tout, W. J.


Murnin, Hugh
Sanders, W. S.
Townend, A. E.


Nathan, Major H. L.
Sandham, E.
Turner, Sir Ben


Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Sawyer, G. F.
Vaughan, David


Noel Baker, P. J.
Scott, James
Viant, S. P.


Noel-Buxton, Baroness (Norfolk, N.)
Sexton, Sir James
Walkden, A. G.


Oldfield, J. R.
Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.
Walker, J.


Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston)
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis
Wallace, H. W.


Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley)
Sherwood, G. H.
Watkins, F. C.


Owen, Major G. (Carnarvon)
Shield, George William
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Owen, H. F. (Hereford)
Shillaker, J. F.
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Palin, John Henry
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Joslah


Paling, Wilfrid
Simmons, C. J.
Wellock, Wilfred


Palmer, E. T.
Sinclair, Sir A. (Caithness)
Walsh, James (Paisley)


Parkinson, John Allen (wigan)
Sinkinson, George
West, F. R.


Perry, S. F.
Sitch, Charles H.
Westwood, Joseph


Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)
Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)


Phillips, Dr. Marlon
Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)
Whiteley, William (Blaydon)


Picton-Turbervill, Edith
Smith, Lees-, Rt. Hon. H. B. (Keighley)
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Pole, Major D. G.
Smith, Rennle (Penistone)
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Potts, John S.
Smith, Tom (Pontefract)
Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)


Price, M. P.
Smith, W. R. (Norwich)
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Pybus, Percy John
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Quibell, D. J. K.
Snowden, Thomas (Accrington)
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Ramsay, T. B. Wilson
Sorensen, R.
Wilson, J. (Oldham)


Rathbone, Eleanor
Stamford, Thomas W.
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Raynes, W. R.
Stephen, Campbell
Winterton, G. E.(Leicester, Loughb'gh)


Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Strauss, G. R.
Wood, Major McKenzie (Banff)


Riley, Ben (Dewsbury)
Sullivan, J.



Riley, F. F. (Stockton-on-Tees)
Sutton, J. E.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—




Mr. Thurtle and Mr. Charleton.


NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Ganzonl, Sir John
Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C M. S.
Gault, Lieut.-col. A. Hamilton
Ross, Ronald D.


Atholl, Duchess of
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Atkinson, C.
Gower, Sir Robert
Salmon, Major I.


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Grattan- Doyle, Sir N.
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Beaumont, M. W.
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Betterton, Sir Henry B.
Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)
Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart


Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Savery, S. S.


Boothby, R. J. G.
Henderson, Capt. R. R.(Oxf'd, Henley)
Shepperson, Sir Ernest Whittome


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Herbert, Sir Dennis (Hertford)
Skelton, A. N.


Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart
Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)
Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)


Braithwaite, Major A. N.
Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Briscoe, Richard George
Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer
Smithers, Waldron


Broadbent, Colonel J.
Hurd, Percy A.
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Hurst, Sir Gerald B.
Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)


Burton, Colonel H. W.
Inskip, Sir Thomas
Southby, Commander A. R. J.


Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)
Spender-Clay, Colonel H.


Campbell, E. T.
Lamb, Sir J. Q.
Stanley, Hon. O. (Westmorland)


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)
Law, Sir Alfred (Derby, High Peak)
Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur


Chapman, Sir S.
Lewis, Oswald (Colchester)
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Christie, J. A.
Llewellin, Major J. J.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral M. F.


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Lockwood, Captain J. H.
Taylor, Vice-Admiral E. A.


Cohen, Major J. Brunei
Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)
Thomas, Major L. B. (King's Norton)


Colfox, Major William Philip
Margesson, Captain H. D.
Thompson, Luke


Courtauld, Major J. S.
Marjoribanks, Edward
Thomson, Mitchell-, Rt. Hon. Sir W.


Cranborne, Viscount
Merriman, Sir F. Boyd
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Croom-Johnson, R. P.
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B.
Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon


Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)
Morrison, W. S. (Glos., Cirencester)
Wallace, Capt. D. E. (Hornsey)


Cunliffe-Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Muirhead, A. J.
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert


Dalrymple-White, Lt.-Col. Sir Godfrey
Oman, Sir Charles William C.
Warrender, Sir Victor


Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
O'Neill, Sir H.
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Dawson, Sir Philip
Peake, Capt. Osbert
Wayland, Sir William A.


Dug dale, Capt, T. L.
Penny, Sir George
Wells, Sydney R.


Eden, Captain Anthony
Perkins, W. R. D.
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Elliot, Major walter E.
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)
Womersley, W. J.


Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-S-M.)
Pownall, Sir Assheton
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Everard, W. Lindsay
Ramsbotham, H.



Ferguson, Sir John
Remer, John R.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Fermey, Lord
Reynolds, Col. Sir James
Sir Frederick Thomson and Captain


Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'te'y)
Austin Hudson.


Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

CLAUSE 27.—(General conditions.)

Captain BOURNE: I beg to move, in page 27, line 12, to leave out the words
farmhouse, that is to say a.
I have a consequential Amendment two lines later to leave out the word "the" and to insert "any." If these Amendments were carried, the definition of agricultural land would read:
'Agricultural land' means land and buildings with respect to which, by reason of Sub-section (2) of Section sixty-seven of the Local Government Act, 1929, no particulars are included in any valuation list, or which are deemed under that Sub-section to have no rateable value for the purposes of the list, but also includes any house occupied in connection with such land as aforesaid and used as the dwelling-house of any person who is primarily engaged in carrying on or directing agricultural operations on that land.
I apologise for moving a manuscript Amendment, but it is really substantially the same as one that I have down which, owing to technical reasons and to the operation of the Guillotine, is actually out of order at the present stage. I put it down as consequential on one which we had hoped to discuss on Clause 14, and I move it now in manuscript form in order to raise the same point. In the case of agricultural land, the cultivation value has to be deducted from the site value in order to arrive at the improvement value, if any, which is assessable to tax. It is a somewhat complicated operation. In this definition a farm in most cases, unless it has a farmhouse, has really very little cultivation value. I wish to suggest that, in considering cultivation value, it is extremely important to regard a farmhouse as not properly equipped unless it has not only a residence for the farmer but those cottages which are necessary for carrying on the work. A large farm which has not cottages on it is not really of very great value for cultivation purposes. There are certain cottages which are absolutely essential if a farm is to be carried on successfully. You must have a cottage for your cowman, because he has to work at all hours of the day and night, especially when the cows are calving, when he may have to be up all night for possibly two or three nights running. Unless he can live within very close proximity it is impossible to get a man to undertake the work, and I do not
wonder at it. A wagoner starts work very early in the morning. He has to collect the horses and see that they are harnessed, and they have to be groomed and watered, and he must live very near if he is going to do his job successfully. It is a heavy strain on the men who do this work, and they are paid more highly than the ordinary agricultural labourer.

Mr. JAMES HUDSON: Not very much.

Captain BOURNE: In many cases it amounts to a good deal in the course of a year. They get their cottages rent free and have their wood and coal, and a good many items come in to make up their wages. If they are not paid in cash, it is often because it is mutually convenient to pay part of the extra allowances in kind. No tenant would be willing to rent a farm which has not the necessary cottages on it and, without them, a farm is not properly equipped. These cottages form a very material part of the cultivation value, and they are as essentially a part of the cultivation value as is the farmhouse itself. If the Government mean to deal honestly with the agricultural problem, these cottages must be taken into account. Under the Bill I understand that every separate farm in separate occupation will have to be valued as a land unit. It is open to the Commissioners of Inland Revenue—and against that, in the Bill as at present drawn, there is no appeal—to say that a prudent vendor would sell the estate as a whole, and not in parts.
If there is one thing on an estate which is more important than another, it is the provision of sufficient and good properties for the agricultural labourers. I can speak of this matter with some knowledge. One of the things which every estate owner knows, and everybody who has ever owned agricultural land knows, is that you have to build and maintain a requisite number of cottages for the agricultural labourers, and do so at a completely uneconomic rent. These cottages rarely fetch more than 3s. a week, which, I believe, is the maximum allowed under the Agricultural Wages Board. Many of them let at far lower rents than that. They are not an economic property. If you change a tenant, more than one year's rent disappears altogether simply on
doing up the cottage for another man. You lose from one to two year's rent repeatedly. Those cottages are not there for the purpose of enriching the landowner, but as part of the necessary-equipment of an estate. Without them an estate could not be worked. I submit that those cottages are just as much a part of the cultivation value as are the farmhouses which the Government have already omitted. It is for this reason that I urge the Committee to accept the Amendment.

Sir BASIL PETO: As one would expect, we have had from the hon. and gallant Member for Oxford (Captain Bourne), who knows the subject of agriculture and the needs of agriculture from A to Z, a speech in favour of the Amendment which leaves comparatively little to be said in support of it by any other Member. I support it most heartily and commend it to the learned Solicitor-General. I believe that if he has had connection with the land and with rural cottages, he will probably agree with me that it is inconceivable to imagine a cultivation value of a unit of land, if it is in the nature of a farm, which is not equipped with everything necessary to carry on cultivation. The definition which exempts the farmhouse is a recognition of the principle that cultivable land is not cultivable unless it is equipped with a farmhouse; otherwise it would not have a cultivation value. The Amendment is designed to show—and I think it effectively shows—that that equally applies to the essential cottages required for the occupation of the people who, equally with the farmer, can be described as
primarily engaged in carrying on or directing the agricultural operations on that land.
That being so, we have, in dealing with this question, to consider the farm land as a unit. We have the phrase, "land unit," running through the Bill. If you are dealing with a unit which is cultivable, it must be a unit equipped with the necessary buildings—not only the farmhouse, but cottages as well. Wherever they may be situated within reach of the cultivable unit, they must also be taken into account. The hon. and gallant Member for Oxford referred to two or three cottages being immediately and closely connected with the
particular land unit, and in case the Solicitor-General points out in his reply that the Amendment would carry us further, I frankly admit that it would. It says, when you leave out the words proposed to be left out, "any house occupied in connection with such land." That may include a house occupied in connection with the land even if the house is in a neighbouring village. If such a house is occupied in connection with the cultivation of the land, and is a house essential to carrying on the industry of agriculture in a particular unit, I hold that we are perfectly right in asking that it should be omitted from the reckoning of the land value.
A great deal has been said from time to time about the question of tied cottages. If hon. Members will excuse my saying so, I think that a great deal of what has been said has really been the most arrant nonsense. There is no question, if a farm is a unit and must be equipped with cottages, if it must have those cottages exclusively for the occupation of the people engaged upon the farm, that it is equally to the advantage of the men carrying on farming occupations, the farmer, and the cottagers or farm labourers. I believe that that fact is recognised throughout the country. I say frankly, and I am not at all afraid to say so, that this exempts from land tax what are practically the tied cottages of the farmer. The tied cottages of the farmer are essential to the cultivation of the farm and ought to be exempt from land tax in this connection.
Usually the first line of argument of anyone in charge of Treasury questions on a Finance Bill is that a concession would cost too much. I suggest to the learned Solicitor-General—and I am sure that he is conscious of the fact—that this harmless, innocent and necessary Amendment will really cost him practically nothing at all. These are, in the nature of the case, cottages upon minor land units, if they are detached from the farm, and therefore the inclusion of cottages outside the actual area of the farm, in respect of which my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Oxford is especially pleading, can certainly be included without costing the Treasury a farthing. It is inconceivable that these individual cottages are likely, even if they are somewhere within the reach of many of the centres which are develop-
ing, to be upon a site which will exceed £120 in capital land value. Therefore, I commend the Amendment to the Committee, first because the definition of agricultural land as the Clause stands is incomplete if it includes only the farmhouse and excludes the equally essential cottages, and secondly because the Amendment can be accepted by the Government without interfering with the prospective return of their tax in an infinitesimal degree.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: The scope of the Amendment is, I think, a little wider than the hon. Baronet who has just spoken would have us believe. Clearly, it would cover the mansion house which is occupied where there is a farm, and that would not be in accordance with the wishes of the Committee. Moreover, the difficulty to which the hon. Baronet drew attention is, of course, a very real one. You would have claims for the inclusion of sites of cottages a mile or two miles off, and the valuer would not have the task of valuing as a single unit a farm in one place, but perhaps two or three cottage sites dotted about the country in other places. That would be introducing a great difficulty, because it is very difficult for the valuer to value as a single unit land which is not even contiguous but separated in several different places.
There is another point which, I think, hon. Members have not realised. We are not here dealing with the question of cottages but with sites, and the site value of cottages really is nothing much on an agricultural farm. It does not matter where you put the cottages on the farm or somewhere near the farmhouse, for if one is dealing with it as a site, it does not really make any great burden on the farmer if he has to pay on that site at all. Of course, the hon. Baronet has pointed out that, in a number of cases where the farms themselves are excluded, the sites of the cottages would not amount to more than ten shillings, if that. There is a further point. This question, of course, arose in a different form upon the De-rating Bill, and in that case cottages were not exempted. They were not de-rated, and the criterion, therefore, was a very different one, because there you were dealing not only with the site, which is comparatively valueless, but with the build-
ings which have more value. Hon. Gentlemen opposite, when they were dealing with cottages, thought it was right to continue the rates upon them, although they discontinued the rates upon the land. Now we have gone rather further in favour of the landowners, because we have included the sites of farmhouses which were not included in the De-rating Bill. The question of going further still and including the sites of cottages which might be removed considerable distances from the unit of which they were assumed to be part, would create difficulty and would not, in our view, result in any real advantage to anyone. In view of the form of this Amendment especially, and the fact that it would include such things as mansion houses as well, it is impossible for me to accept it.

Earl WINTERTON: I hope that we shall get the next Amendment in regard to roads before the Guillotine falls. The argument which the Solicitor-General used in the closing words of his speech is a disingenuous one. I do not see that he can draw any fair comparison between what occurred under the De-rating Bill and this Bill, and for this reason. There is a vast difference between the intention in the two cases, and not only the intention but the action. I am surprised that the hon. and learned Gentleman, with his acute dialectical skill, used such an argument. The De-rating Bill removed from agriculture one of the heaviest burdens which it can bear. This Bill, on the contrary, is going to place additional burden upon agriculture. Agriculture generally is going to bear a vastly increased burden, far heavier than the Government will admit, and we say that this burden should be removed as it would be if we were to pass this Amendment.
I would point out that, under the last Government of hon. Gentlemen opposite, a committee was appointed to inquire into agricultural conditions, and it reported that the conditions of the British agricultural labourer in regard to pay, housing and otherwise were better than in any other country in Europe. A most important part of the internal economy of agriculture is this system by which agricultural labourers are enabled to occupy houses far below their letting value. The Committee can have no conception of the extent to which that pre-
vails in the South of England. I have cottages letting at three shillings a week to agricultural labourers, and if I chose to turn them out, as I am sorry to say some of my neighbours have done, I could let those cottages at from 12s. to l5s. a week as week-end cottages or permanent residences. The agricultural labourer gets a great advantage in this way. It is only just that these cottages should be regarded as part of the equipment of the land. That is what we are asking in this Amendment.
The Solicitor-General, who has not shown quite as much knowledge of this subject as of other agricultural subjects, suggested that in any case the site value of the cottages would be very small. That is not so, for in some cases it is considerable. The site value in many cases will be appreciable, and it will form a heavy burden on the owner in proportion to the rent paid. Without this Amendment an appreciable burden will be placed on agriculture. It is not right that this should be done, and whatever hon. Gentlemen opposite may like to say about landlords and farmers, on the admission of their own committee, agricultural labourers in this country have better houses and food than in any country in Europe.

Sir JOSEPH LAMB: When the Solicitor-General stated that the Amendment as now drawn would include mansion houses, I think he must have been under some misapprehension. As I read the Bill, it will mean:
any …. house occupied in connection with such land as aforesaid and Used as the dwelling-house of the person who is primarily engaged in carrying on or directing agricultural operations on that land.
It cannot be assumed that the mansion in which the owner of the estate lives would be included in that definition. The argument put forward by my Noble Friend about cottages being necessary equipment of the land is, I think, conclusive. The principle has already been accepted in regard to the Rent Restrictions Acts, for a man can obtain possession of cottages for an employé, without having to go to court, simply by obtaining from the agricultural officer of the county a statement or certificate that the house is requisite for the cultivation of the land. That was an admission of the principle that these cottages are neces-
sary for the proper working of the land. Undoubtedly, where there is stock on the farm, it is absolutely impossible to manage the farm adequately unless the men are living adjacent to their work. It is not only in the interests of agriculture and the owners of stock, but in the interest of the workers themselves. It is obvious that if a man has to keep long hours, such as are, unfortunately, necessary in an agricultural occupation, it is essential he should not have to walk a long distance early in the morning and late at night.
There is also the question of the midday meal. Men do not often get the opportunity of having a hot meal at midday unless they live adjacent to their work. That is another reason why it is essential in the interests of the men that these cottages should be in close proximity to their work. There is also the protection of the crops on the farm which makes it essential that the men should live fairly adjacent to their work. There is nothing so open to the depredation—I do not use the word unkindly—of other people as the crops grown in agriculture, because they are widely spread. There is also the danger of fire which makes it essential that you should have at close call sufficient help when emergency arises. It is necessary not only that the cottages should be in close proximity to the mens' work, but that there should be an adequate supply of houses in the neighbourhood, but, unfortunately, owing to the difficulty of building in rural areas as against building in the more populous industrial areas the housing accommodation in rural areas is not adequate. That means that if the house is not on the farm the men have to travel very long distances to and from their work. The arguments which have been put forward in the interests, not only of agriculture and the cultivation of the land, but in the interests of the workers themselves ought to lead the Solicitor-General to accept the Amendment.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir G. COURTHOPE: There was one point made by the Solicitor-General which I cannot allow to pass unnoticed. He gave as one of the reasons for refusing to accept the Amendment that it would complicate valuations. Surely, his resistance of it will complicate valuations. The simple
farm valuation is to include in the unit of land everything that is in the schedule of the one tenancy. If the valuer is to exclude cottages from inclusion in the schedule of the tenancy it will be a much more complicated affair than including everything within the same tenancy. To that fallacy in the Solicitor-General's statement I wished to draw attention. I would also ask the hon. and learned Member to consider what will be the inevitable result of this decision, assuming that the Bill reaches the Statute Book in its present form. My Noble Friend the Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton) has told the Committee what is perfectly true that in many parts of the country it is easy to get a very much higher rent for a cottage than those who consider the equipment of their holdings are able to get.
Hon. Members will find all through the home counties and in the neighbourhood of populous centres frequent instances of cottages let at 12s., 15s., 18s. or even 20s. a week, while precisely similar cottages close by are let at 2s. to 3s. to agricultural workers, not because higher rents are unobtainable but because the cottages are essential as part of the equipment of the farm. You cannot run a farm without them. If you put a tax upon these essential cottages—the stockman's house, the wagoner's house, the shepherd's house—on the basis of the value of similar cottages close by, which are not required for farm use, you will inevitably tend to withdraw these essential cottages and consequently essential men from the cultivation of the farm, and you may do unutterable injury to the industry of agriculture.

Mr. PRICE: I cannot subscribe to the view that if farmers are deprived of some of their cottages the land still has no value. While I agree that it is essential on a stock farm to have cottages for the men who look after the stock, I know of a good many farms where one or two of the cottages outside the village are let to townspeople at high rents while one cottage perhaps is retained by the farmer for his man. By no means is it the ease that all these cottages are let to agricultural labourers or to those directly attached to the farm.
I see no reason whatever for the Solicitor-General to alter his attitude on this matter. I do not see that there will be any site value attached to the cottages on the farm except possibly on those that may be outside a village or outside a rural provincial town where it is conceivable a very small tax might be placed. In regard to the majority of cases cited by the hon. and gallant Member for Oxford (Captain Bourne) I cannot conceive that on the type of cottage attached to the farm and required for the stockman and the wagoner a site value tax would in any case be imposed.

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I should be glad if the Solicitor-General would reconsider this matter, which is very important. Its importance is not so much a question of site value. We desire that the cultivation value should be increased, because if so there is a bigger deduction from the land value.

The SOLICITOR - GENERAL: That would not come in here. If it is put in here it will come both in the land value and the cultivation value. That would have to be an Amendment to Clause 8. It cannot come in here. I will consider the point whether we can do anything in Clause 8 as regards agricultural buildings to extend it to include cottages.

Captain BOURNE: In view of the last statement by the Solicitor-General I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: I beg to move, in page 28, line 1, after the word
underlease," to insert the words "or other tenancy.

This Amendment is moved in order to extend the definition of the lease to include as well as the underlease, "any other tenancy." Two consequential Amendments will follow.

Captain BOURNE: May I take it that this Amendment will bring an agricultural contract of tenancy within the terms of Clause 21?

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: Yes.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: In page 28, line 2, leave out the word "or."

In line 2, after the word "underlease," insert the words "or tenancy."—[The Solicitor-General.]

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: I beg to move, in line 7, after the word "authority," to insert the words:
and includes the corporation for which any such body acts for executive purposes.
This Amendment is to meet the case of the Corporation of the City of London. As the words stand they would not cover the case of the Corporation of London as they manage their lands through the Common Lands Council.

Amendment agreed to.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: I beg to move, in line 13, to leave out the words "or by surface."
This is an Amendment which relates to the definition of minerals. As the definition now reads it says:
'Minerals' includes all minerals and substances in or under land of a kind ordinarily worked for removal by underground or by surface working: 
I propose to leave out the words "or by surface," and it would then be confined to those minerals which are ordinarily worked for removal by underground working. The Amendment, if accepted, would define minerals as those which are got by underground working, such as iron and coal, and would exclude sand, gravel, stone and clay. I hope the Government will be able to accept it because it is quite impossible to value land if you exclude from the substances you are valuing everything beneath the surface. The definition in the Bill is so wide that it must necessarily include gravel, stone, sand and clay, but land is never sold without those elements in the land being sold at the same time. Therefore, if you are going to value with these substances removed from consideration you involve yourself in a purely hypothetical valuation. The transactions which have taken place in land, all registered at Somerset House, will be of no guidance to valuers if minerals of this sort are exempt from valuation.
I am not in the least wedded to this form of words, but what we need is a valuation which will work, something which clearly defines what the Government intend and a much narrower definition of minerals. Probably a better form of words would be to include as
minerals those minerals which are included under the Mineral Eights Duty. That would be a definite, legal and accepted distinction between the minerals that we feel ought to be excluded from land value and those other substances which are so incalculable. If clay, for instance, is excluded from the land value the tax will have no tendency to force clay beds into the market and secure their development. One of the most serious rings hampering the building of houses to-day is the brick and tile ring, and if we could, by a tax upon the value of the clay which is not worked, force these clay beds into the market there would be an increase in the competition in the production of bricks, the ring would be broken and prices would come down. This is important from the point of view of the pottery trade, but it is far more important from the point of view of the building trade. It is the same in regard to stone and other materials used in the making of roads. The development of our roads depends on getting these semi-minerals at a cheap price and in large quantities. If you exempt them from the tax and say that the owner of sand or gravel and stone is to be exempt, thereby encourage him to keep his minerals from use, you are putting an additional charge on the public for the construction of roads.
The main point in the Amendment is to get something which is far more workable than the definition in the Bill. If any valuation is to carry with it the confidence of the public it must be a valuation which can be checked by the public. A great deal was said on the Second Reading of the Bill as to the desirability of publicity in regard to this valuation, but it is no good having publicity for a valuation which represents nothing in actual fact. One owner cannot compare his valuation with that of a neighbouring valuation so long as you have such a hypothetical valuation as this. What would my land be worth if there were no gravel underneath. I know it would be worth much less. I know that I have paid for the gravel. He may say: "What would be the value of my land without stone. I do not know, but, obviously, it would be much less." Obviously the valuation will be no check as to the value of any neigh-
bouring land if it is a valuation which excludes these elements which are taken into account in every sale and purchase of land. The Chancellor of the Exchequer promised that he would have this matter looked into, and I hope that we shall now get a clearer definition, which can only help the valuation as well as those who need this type of raw material.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: This matter has been carefully considered, as my right hon. Friend promised, and we are unable to see our way to make any considerable alteration in the definition as it now stands. It will be noticed that the exemption under Clause 8 is the value of the minerals as such, that is to say, the value of the minerals as something you can get in or under the land. If the word "surface" is left out it would leave this position, that where minerals are got by underground working they would be excluded, and if they are got by surface working they would be included. That is a position, obviously, without any logic behind it, because coal may be got by surface working—

Colonel WEDGWOOD: The definition says "ordinarily worked."

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: Take stone. In the district where I live half of the stone is got by surface working and half by underground working, quarrying. Obviously, it would be quite illogical to include that which was got by surface working and not that got by quarrying. But the real answer is that we desire to exclude the value of minerals altogether in order to simplify the valuation. We do not want to have to inquire, for instance in the southern part of London, whether there is a gravel pit under each house, and, if so, how much undeveloped gravel there is there to be included in the valuation. We want to take the sites as they are. I do not think my right hon. and gallant Friend is quite accurate in saying that in every case, or even in many cases where land is sold, account is taken of the gravel or sand underneath. It is only in exceptional cases, such as some of the South London fields, where land is regarded in that way. I have had a great deal of experience of valuations around a great many of the big cities of this country, and I have only once or twice heard it suggested that the value
for compensation purposes, where the value has been put as high as possible, should include anything underneath. That was the case at Dagenham. I think my right hon. and gallant Friend can rest assured that we have done what we think is best in order to make the valuation efficient and practicable.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: I am most dissatisfied with the Solicitor-General's reply, which seems to me to be based on an entire fallacy. The hon. and learned Gentleman says he has never had a case in any valuation of a value being put on the subsoil. That is true, but here, under this valuation, you have to take account of it. Here it is obviously to the interest of the landlord to value his land as low as possible in order to avoid tax. The landlord for the first time will get values put in based upon the deduction of these minerals. And you have nothing on which to go. There have been no cases in which land has been sold without the subsoil. For the first time you are asked to value without the subsoil, and you will find it much more difficult to do. When the Solicitor-General says that these things have to be included, I say that the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his speech stated that the reason why minerals were excluded from the valuation was that the Labour party proposed to nationalise minerals. Do they propose to nationalise gravel, and sand and clay and leave the surface in private ownership? There has never been any suggestion of the sort. Therefore the Solicitor-General's argument on the major case falls to the ground.

Amendment negatived.

Earl WINTERTON: I beg to move, in page 28, line 20, to leave out from the word "which "to the end of line 25, and to insert instead thereof the words:
has been constructed by the occupier or his predecessors in title.
10.0 p.m.
I want to deal very shortly with this point, and I hope that the Solicitor-General will be sympathetic to it, because it is a point that is vital to agriculture in some parts of the country. One can only speak from one's own experience in those parts of the country with which one is familiar. I apologise for again mentioning cases which have come under my personal cognisance in that part of the country which I represent and where I
live. In the Clause the word "lane" is included. In the South of England there are many lanes which are rights of way in the full sense of the term. There are rights of way for vehicles, foot passengers and horsemen. So long as they remain unmetalled lanes, which a great many of them are, they will not give any site value to the land through which they pass, but in many cases, particularly in recent years, owing to the fact that farmers in these days are more exigeant than they used to be, owing to the farmers' demand for facilities to get to and from their houses, these lanes have been metalled and have been turned into roads.
Manifestly the land over which there has been a right of way, but which has not been used except occasionally by foot passengers, owing to the state of the road, when it has been metalled has still a right of way which is used to get to the farm. Therefore it is not excluded by the provision that it is open only to the occupier, because this would be a [...]ight of way for all vehicles. What happens in cases of that kind? Immediately the value of the land on each side of this road will undoubtedly go up for building purposes. But the landlord has no intention of selling it. The farmer intends to treat it as agricultural land. Two things happen: The landlord or the farmer has improved what I may call the equipment of the agricultural value of the land by turning an impassable lane into a metalled road. But he has done so without any desire or ulterior object of improving the site value of the land. Cases of that sort are to be found in all parts of the South of England near towns. In Sussex there is hardly a bit of road which has not probably got some building value. It is not fair that the owner or the owner-occupier using the land for purely agricultural purposes should be taxed. That is the object of the Amendment.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: I am not quite certain of the exact type of case which the Amendment has in mind. There is the road known as the occupation road on the farm, and one which is solely for the use of the farm. Of course that does not mean that people who want to go to see the farmer do not drive along the road. If that is the type that the Noble Lord has in mind—

Earl WINTERTON: I did not explain as clearly or concisely as I should have done. What I have in mind is a case where there is a right of way over the lane for all vehicles, that is to say, open to the public. That right of way is not used while the lane is still a lane and before it is metalled, for the simple reason that in winter it is impassable owing to the wet, and in summer owing to the ruts. The owner-occupier of the farm adjoining the land decides to turn the lane into a metalled road. It then becomes a public road. It is not and never has been a road used only by the occupier. It has always been open to the public, but, by virtue of the fact that it has been made a metalled road, the public proceed to use it, not for the purpose of getting to the farm, but, generally, and therefore it is not excluded.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: I agree that that case is not excluded. I am sorry that I misunderstood the Noble Lord. In that case the road would, presumably, be reparable by the inhabitants at large.

Earl WINTERTON: No, it is not so.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: Then I am not quite certain what type of road it is.

Earl WINTERTON: I am sorry to interrupt again, but I can give a personal instance of a road of that kind which is maintained by me. I took counsel's opinion as to whether I could compel the local authority to take it over, and I was informed that there was no power to do so.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: That would be a case in which an easement had been granted to the public many years ago by the Noble Lord's predecessors in title.

Earl WINTERTON: Not an easement.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: It must be an easement. That is the description of the right of the public to pass over the land. Apparently the public have the right to pass over the land in this case. I am assuming that the Noble Lord does not mean to shut up the road on one day in each year or anything of that sort. It is a public right of way over the Noble Lord's land and he or someone else has metalled that road, much to the
benefit of the public. That road does not differ essentially in character from any other road which the public have the right to use and I do not think it would be practicable to try to distinguish the instance of a road of that sort, from the instance of a road which is reparable by the inhabitants at large or a road belonging to a public authority. There are many such lanes. There was one which I remember down at Morden—now in the middle of the London County Council's housing estate—which was known as Love Lane. It was a green. secluded lane going down the side of a hill and was not

metalled. But it was, I believe, largely used by the public. That did not entitle the owner of the land on either side of the road to claim that it was a special sort of road. It was just the same sort of road as other roads though possibly it had some special characteristics. I do not think that any case has been made out by the Noble Lord as regards special treatment for that type of road.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 275; Noes, 157.

Division No. 323.]
AYES.
[10.9 p.m.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Dukes, C.
Kedward, R. M. (Kent, Ashford)


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Duncan, Charles
Kelly, W. T.


Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher
Ede, James Chuter
Kennedy, Rt. Hon. Thomas


Altchison, Rt. Han. Cragle M.
Edmunds, J. E.
Kirkwood, D.


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (Hillsbro)
Edwards, E. (Morpeth)
Knight, Holford


Alpass, J. H.
Egan, W. H.
Lang, Gordon


Ammon, Charles George
Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George


Angell, Sir Norman
Foot, Isaac
Lathan, G. (Sheffield, Park)


Arnott, John
Freeman, Peter
Law, Albert (Bolton)


Aske, Sir Robert
Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)
Law, A. (Rossendale)


Attlee, Clement Richard
Gardner, J. P. (Hammersmith, N.)
Lawrence, Susan


Ayles, walter
George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Lawrie, Hugh Hartley (Stalybridge)


Baker, John (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesea)
Lawson, John James


Barnes, Alfred John
Gill, T. H.
Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle)


Barr, James
Gillett, George M.
Leach, W.


Batey, Joseph
Glassey, A. E.
Lee, Frank (Derby, N. E.)


Benn, Rt. Hon. Wedgwood
Gossling, A. S.
Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern)


Bennett, Sir E. N. (Cardiff, Central)
Gould, F.
Lees, J.


Bennett, William (Battersea, South)
Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Leonard, W.


Benson, G.
Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)
Lloyd, C. Ellis


Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)
Gray, Milner
Logan, David Gilbert


Blinded, James
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Coins).
Longbottom, A. W.


Bondfield, Rt. Hon. Margaret
Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Longden, F.


Bowen, J. W.
Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro' W.)
Lovat-Fraser, J. A.


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Lunn, William


Broad, Francis Alfred
Groves, Thomas E.
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)


Brockway, A. Fenner
Grundy, Thomas W.
MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)


Bromfield, William
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Macdonald, Sir M. (Inverness)


Bromley, J.
Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)
McElwee, A.


Brothers, M.
Hall, Capt. W. G. (Portsmouth, C.)
McEntee, V. L.


Brown, C. W. E. (Notts, Mansfield)
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Zetland)
McGovern, J. (Glasgow, Shottleston)


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Harbord, A.
MacLaren, Andrew


Buchanan, G.
Hardie, David (Rutherglen)
MacNeill-Weir, L.


Burgess, F. G.
Hardie, G. D. (Springburn)
Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)


Burgin, Dr. E. L.
Harris, Percy A.
Mander, Geoffrey le M.


Buxton, C. R. (Yorks. W. R. Elland)
Hastings, Dr. Somerville
Manning, E. L.


Caine, Hall-, Derwent
Hayes, John Henry
Mansfield, W.


Cameron, A. G.
Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)
March, S.


Cape, Thomas
Henderson, Arthur, Junr. (Cardiff, S.)
Marcus, M.


Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S. W.)
Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow)
Markham, S. F.


Charleton, H. C.
Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield)
Marley, J.


Chater, Daniel
Herriotts, J.
Marshall, Fred


Church, Major A. G.
Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth)
Mathers, George


Clarke, J. S.
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Matters, L. W.


Cluse, W. S.
Hoffman, P. C.
Maxton, James


Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Hollins, A.
Messer, Fred


Cooks, Frederick Seymour
Hopkin, Daniel
Middleton, G.


Cove, William G.
Hore-Belisha, Leslie.
Mills, J. E.


Cowan, D. M.
Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)
Milner, Major J.


Cripps, Sir Stafford
Hunter, Dr. Joseph
Montague, Frederick


Daggar, George
Isaacs, George
Morgan, Dr. H B.


Dallas, George
Jenkins, Sir William
Morley, Ralph


Dalton, Hugh
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Morris, Rhys Hopkins


Davies, E. C. (Montgomery)
Johnston, Rt. Hon. Thomas
Morris-Jones. Dr. J. H (Denbigh)


Davies, D. L. (Pontypridd)
Jones, Llewellyn-, F.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Hackney. S)


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughten)
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Morrison, Robert C. (Tottenham, N)


Day, Harry
Jones, Rt. Hon Leif (Camborne)
Mort, D. L.


Denman, Hon. R. D.
Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W.
Muff, G.


Dudgeon, Major C. R.
Jowitt, Rt. Hon. Sir W. A. (Preston)
Muggeridge, H. T


Murnin, Hugh
Samuel, H. walter (Swansea, west)
Tinker, John Joseph


Nathan, Major H. L.
Sanders, W. S.
Toole, Joseph


Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Sandham, E.
Tout, W. J.


Noel Baker, P. J.
Sawyer, G. F.
Townend, A. E.


Noel-Buxton, Baroness (Norfolk, N,)
Sexton, Sir James
Vaughan, David


Oldfield, J. R.
Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.
Viant, S. P.


Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston)
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis
Walkden, A. Q.


Oliver, P. M. (Man. Blackley)
Sherwood, G. H.
Walker, J.


Owen, Major G. (Carnarvon)
Shield, George William
Wallace, H. W.


Palin, John Henry
Shillaker, J. F.
Watkins, F. C.


Palmer, E. T.
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Simmons, C. J.
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Perry, S. F.
Sinclair, Sir A. (Caithness)
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah


Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Sinkinson, George
Wellock, Wilfred


Phillips, Dr. Marlon
Sitch, Charles H.
Weish, James (Paisley)


Picton-Turbervill, Edith
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)
West, F. R.


Pole, Major D. a.
Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)
Westwood, Joseph


Potts, John S.
Smith, Lees-, Rt. Hon. H. B. (Keighley)
Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)


Price, M. P.
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)
Whiteley, William (Blaydon)


Pybus, Percy John
Smith, Tom (Pontefract)
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Quibell, D. J. K.
Smith, W. R. (Norwich)
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Ramsay, T. B. Wilson
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip
Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)


Raynes, W. R.
Snowden, Thomas (Accrington)
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Richards, R.
Sorensen, R.
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Richardeon, R. (Houghton-le-spring)
Stamford, Thomas W.
Wilson, J. (Oldham)


Riley, Ben (Dewsbury)
Stephen, Campbell
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Riley, F. F. (Stockton-on-Tees)
Strauss, G. R.
Winterton, G. E.(Leicester, Loughb'gh)


Ritson, J.
Sullivan, J.
Wise, E. F.


Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich)
Sutton, J. E.
Wood, Major McKenzie (Banff)


Rom[...]ril, H. G.
Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln)
Young, R. S. (Islington, North)


Rosbotham, D. S. T.
Taylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S. W.)



Rowson, Guy
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Russell, Richard John (Eddisbury)
Thurtle, Ernest
Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr. Paling.


Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)
Tillett, Ban



NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Mason, Colonel Glyn K.


Albery, Irving James
Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
Merriman, Sir F. Boyd


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Dawson, Sir Philip
Milne, Wardlaw-, J. S.


Atholl, Duchess of
Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F.
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B.


Atkinson, C.
Dugdale, Capt. T. L.
Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Edmondson, Major A. J.
Morrison, W. S. (Glos., Cirencester)


Balniel, Lord
Elliot, Major walter E.
Muirhead, A. J.


Beaumont, M. W.
Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston- S-M.)
Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G. (ptrsf'ld)


Betterton, Sir Henry B.
Everard, W. Lindsay
O'Connor, T. J.


Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman
Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Oman, Sir Charles William C.


Boothby, R. J. G.
Ferguson, Sir John
O'Neill, Sir H.


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Fermoy, Lord
Peaks, Capt. Osbert


Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart
Forestler-Walker, Sir L.
Penny, Sir George


Bracken, B.
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)


Braithwaite, Major A. N.
Ganzonl, Sir John
Perkins, W. R. D.


Briscoe, Richard George
Gau[...]t, Lieut.-Col. A. Hamilton
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)


Broadbent, Colonel J.
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Pownall, Sir Assheton


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)
Gower, Sir Robert
Ramsbatham, H.


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Remer, John R.


Buchan, John
Greaves-Lord, Sir walter
Reynolds, Col. Sir James


Burton, Colonel H. W.
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)


Butler, R. A.
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)


Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)
Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell


Campbell, E. T.
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Ross, Ronald D.


Carver, Major W. H.
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Cattle Stewart, Earl of
Haslam, Henry C.
Salmon, Major I.


Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Henderson, Capt. R. R.(Oxf'd, Henley)
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth, S.)
Herbert, Sir Dennis (Hertford)
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.
Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart


Chapman, Sir S.
Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.
Savery, S. S.


Christie, J. A.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney. N.)
Shepperson, Sir Ernest Whittom[...]


Clydesdale, Marquess of
Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer
Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Hurd, Percy A.
Smith, R. W.(Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)


Cohen, Major J. Brunei
Hurst, Sir Gerald B.
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Colfox, Major William Philip
Inskip, Sir Thomas
Smithers, Waldron


Colville, Major D. J.
Iveagh, Countess of
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Cooper, A. Duff
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)
Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)


Courtauld, Major J. S.
Lamb, Sir J. Q.
Southby, Commander A. R. J.


Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.
Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.
Spender-Clay, Colonel H.


Cranborne, Viscount
Law, Sir Alfred 'Derby, High Peak)
Stanley, Hon. O. (Westmorland)


Crichton-Stuart, Lord C.
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur


Croft, Brigadler-General Sir H.
Lewis, Oswald (Colchester)
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Crookshank, Capt. H. C.
Lleweilln, Major J. J.
Sueter, Roar-Admiral M. F.


Croom-Johnson, R. P.
Lockwood, Captain J. H.
Taylor, Vice-Admiral E. A.


Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)
McConnell, Sir Joseph
Thomas, Major L. B. (King's Norton)


Cunliffe-Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)
Thompson, Luke


Dalrymple-White, Lt.-Col. Sir Godfrey
Margesson, Captain H. D.
Thomson, Sir F.


Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. (Hertford)
Marjoribanks, Edward
Thomson, Mitchell-, Rt. Hon. Sir W.




Titchfield, Major the Marquess of
Wayland, Sir William A.
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Train, J.
Wells, Sydney R.



Tryon, Rt. Hon. Georgs Clement
Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George
Captain Wallace and Sir Victor Warrender.


Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl



Waterhouse, Captain Charles
Womersley, W. J.

Sir T. INSKIP: I beg to move, in page 29, line 1, to leave out from the first word "Works" to the word "means", in line 4.
In the definition, of "works" in this Clause, we have one of the most curious and obscure definitions which it has ever been my lot to try to interpret. I very much doubt if any hon. Member, be he lawyer or layman, knows what these words mean, though no doubt when the Solicitor-General has told us what they are intended to mean any hon. Member on the Government side will be persuaded to say that they do in fact mean that. Hon. Members will observe that the word:
'Works' does not include works of excavation or filling executed for the purpose of bringing the configuration of the soil to its actual formation.
When are we to consider the actual formation of the soil? Are we to go back to those geological ages when the configuration of the soil was very different from what it is to-day, or is it the actual formation of the soil after a professional builder has dealt with it? Is it the configuration of the soil after the last land burst or the last earthquake has taken place? [Interruption.] The Solicitor-General is good enough to intervene with an indication that he, too, thinks this definition is a little obscure.

The SOLICITOR - GENERAL: I thought you said the land burst.

Sir T. INSKIP: Perhaps it will be convenient if the Solicitor-General can tell us what is the meaning of the words
executed for the purpose of bringing the configuration of the soil to its actual formation.
I will give an illustration of a case which I think ought to be met in some way by the definition of "works." It is the case of a site by the side of a hill where some work is necessary in order to make a foundation for a building. Is it intended that "works" shall include an excavation of that sort, which was made perhaps a long time ago? Are we to assume that no excavation has been made for the purpose of works, or are we to assume that an excavation has been made so as
to produce a level site. The best course in the circumstances is to ask the Solicitor-General to elucidate this definition, and give us one or two typical cases so that we may be quite sure on what footing land is to be valued having regard to excavations or fillings on the site in question.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: I do not think perhaps that the words are quite so difficult to interpret as my hon. and learned Friend thinks if one follows the sequence of them, because it is obvious that excavation or filling must be executed prior to the actual formation. The works which have been necessary in order to bring it into that actual state of formation are the works which are spoken of here as works of excavation or filling. An example would be where a garden has been levelled and the actual formation of the garden is now in terraces. Certain works of excavation or filling were necessary to make that terracing out of a bank, but instead of assuming, when you look at the site, that it is put back again into a bank, when really its actual formation is a terrace, you value it as a terrace.

Sir T. INSKIP: It is all very well to take the case of a terrace, but let us take the case of the site of the Strand hotel which is being pulled down—[HON. MEMBERS: "The Cecil!"] It is a Strand hotel which is called the Cecil; it is a hotel in the Strand. I raise the question in all seriousness. Is it intended that that excavation, which has been carried out at such great expense, is to be disregarded or it?

Sir D. HERBERT: I would call the attention of the Solicitor-General to a thing which has happened repeatedly in my own constituency during the last few years. In several places, owing to the peculiar conformation of the soil, there has suddenly appeared a pit some 32 feet in diameter and at least 100 feet in depth, costing a considerable sum to fill in. Will he tell me what is the position in that case?

The SOLICITOR - GENERAL: As regards the last question, I do not presume that was a work. I do not know whether it was—[Interruption.]

Sir D. HERBERT: Had it happened on the Solicitor-General's own property, he would have known that the filling of it up was a work.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: If at the time when the site was inspected the actual formation of it was without the hole, it would include the filling up. [Interruption.] You would not go back into history to ascertain whether on any particular site there had already been a hole which had since been filled up. As to the point which the hon. and learned Member for Fareham (Sir T. Inskip) put to me, the case of the Hotel Cecil site, if that happened to be valued at a time when there was nothing on it, that is to say, when everything had been cleared away and there were a hole there, then it would be valued as in its formation, with the hole, and not as if the hole had been subsequently filled in.

Sir B. MERRIMAN: This definition which we are discussing goes to the root of the system of valuation—[Laughter.]

The CHAIRMAN: Order!

Sir B. MERRIMAN: It is nothing less than an outrage that the questions which have been addressed to the Solicitor-General in perfect seriousness, and with a view to elucidating this point, have been treated as they have been. It is of really vital importance to know what is included and what is not included in the definition of "works." Every question which has been put has been greeted with derisive

laughter, and it has hardly been possible to hear the answer. The Solicitor-General has dealt with the assumption that there really is a hotel being pulled down in any given case, but this matter is of great importance on the general system of valuation, and I ventured to put to him the other day the case of the Savoy Hotel, which is still standing. I tried to put to him that there was a certain absurdity not in assuming that the Savoy Hotel was in the middle of the town, which was the point the Solicitor-General took against me, but that the Savoy Hotel was the only site in the Strand from which a building had been cleared, so that the owner was suposed to come into not merely a vacant site but a cleared site. I want to know whether in that case we are to assume that the site is not merely cleared but is excavated. Are excavations to be taken into account under this formula, or are they not?

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: The answer to the question is that in the case of a valuation of a site which carries a building the building is—

It being half-past Ten of the Clock, the CHAIRMAN proceeded, pursuant to the Order of the House of 4th June, to put forthwith the Question in the Amendment already proposed from the Chair.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 271; Noes, 189.

Division No. 324.]
AYES
[10.31 p.m.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Brockway, A. Fenner
Dalton, Hugh


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Bromfield, William
Davies, E. C. (Montgomery)


Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher
Bromley, J.
Davies, D. L. (Pontypridd)


Altchison, Rt. Hon. Craigle M.
Brooke, W.
Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (Hillsbro')
Brothers, M.
Day, Harry


Alpass, J. H.
Brown, C. W. E. (Notts, Mansfield)
Denman, Hon. R. D.


Ammon, Charles George
Buchanan, G.
Dukes, C.


Angell, Sir Norman
Burgess, F. G.
Duncan, Charles


Arnott, John
Burgin, Dr. E. L.
Ede, James Chuter


Attlee, Clement Richard
Buxton, C. R. (Yorks, W. R. Elland)
Edmunds, J. E.


Ayles, walter
Caine, Hall-, Derwent
Edwards, E. (Morpeth)


Baker, John (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
Cameron, A. G.
Egan, W. H.


Barnes, Alfred John
Cape, Thomas
Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)


Barr, James
Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S. W.)
Foot, Isaac


Batey, Joseph
Charleton, H. C.
Freeman, Peter


Benn, Rt. Hon. Wedgwood
Chater, Daniel
Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)


Bennett, Sir E. N. (Cardiff, Central)
Church, Major A. G.
Gardner, J. P. (Hammersmith, N.)


Bennett, William (Battersea, South)
Clarke, J. S.
George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)


Benson, G.
Cluse, W. S.
George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesea)


Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)
Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Gill, T. H.


Blindell, James
Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Gillett, George M.


Bondfield, Rt. Hon. Margaret
Cove, William G.
Glassey, A. E.


Bowen, J. W.
Cripps, Sir Stafford
Gossling, A. G.


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Daggar, George
Gould, F.


Broad, Francis Alfred
Dallas, George
Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)


Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)
McElwee, A.
Samuel, H. walter (Swansea, West)


Gray, Milner
McEntee, V. L.
Sanders, W. S.


Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Colne)
McGovern, J. (Glasgow, Shettleston)
Sandham, E.


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
MacLaren, Andrew
Sawyer, G. F.


Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro' W.)
Maclean, Sir Donald (Cornwall, N.)
Sexton, Sir James


Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
MacNeill-Weir, L.
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis


Groves, Thomas E.
Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)
Sherwood, G. H.


Grundy, Thomas W.
Mander, Geoffrey le M.
Shield, George William


Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Manning, E. L.
Shillaker, J. F.


Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)
Mansfield, W.
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Hall, Capt. W. G. (Portsmouth, C.)
March, S.
Simmons, C. J.


Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Zetland)
Marcus, M.
Sinclair, Sir A. (Caithness)


Harbord, A.
Marley, J.
Sinkinson, George


Hardie, David (Rutherglen)
Marshall, Fred
Sitch, Charles H.


Hardie, G. D. (Springburn)
Mathers, George
Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)


Harris, Percy A.
Matters, L. W.
Smith, Lees-, Rt. Hon. H. B. (Keighley)


Hastings, Dr. Somerville
Maxton, James
Smith, Rennle (Penistone)


Haycock, A. W.
Messer, Fred
Smith, Tom (Pontefract)


Hayes, John Henry
Middleton, G.
Smith, W. R. (Norwich)


Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)
Mills, J. E.
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


Henderson, Arthur, Junr. (Cardiff, S.)
Milner, Major J.
Snowden, Thomas (Accrington)


Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow)
Montague, Frederick
Sorensen, R.


Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield)
Morgan, Dr. H. B.
Stamford, Thomas W.


Herriotts, J.
Morley, Ralph
Stephen, Campbell


Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth)
Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)
Strauss, G. R.


Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Hackney, S.)
Sullivan, J.


Hoffman, P. C.
Morrison, Robert C. (Tottenham, N.)
Sutton, J. E.


Hollins, A.
Mort, D. L.
Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln)


Hopkin, Daniel
Muff, G.
Taylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S. W.)


Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)
Muggeridge, H. T.
Thorne, W. (West Ham. Plalstaw)


Hunter, Dr. Joseph
Murnin, Hugh
Thurtle, Ernest


Isaacs, George
Nathan, Major H. L.
Tillett, Ben


Jenkins, Sir William
Naylor, T. E.
Tinker, John Joseph


John, William (Rhondda, West)
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Toole, Joseph


Johnston, Rt. Hon. Thomas
Noel Baker, P. J.
Tout, W. J.


Jones, Llewellyn-, F.
Noel-Buxton, Baroness (Norfolk, N.)
Town[...]nd, A. E.


Jones, Rt. Hon. Lelf (Camborne)
Oldfield, J. R.
Vaughan, David


Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W.
Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston)
Viant, S. P.


Jowitt, Rt. Hon. Sir W. A. (Preston)
Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley)
Walkden, A. S.


Kelly, W. r.
Owen, Major G. (Carnarvon)
Walker, J.


Kennedy, Rt. Hon. Thomas
Palin, John Henry
Wallace, H. W.


Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.
Paling, Wilfrid
Watkins, F. C.


Kinley, J.
Palmer, E. T.
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Kirkwood, D.
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Watts-Morgan. Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Knight, Holford
Perry, S. F.
Wellock, Wilfred


Lang, Gordon
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Weish, James (Paisley)


Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Phillips, Dr. Marlon
West, F. R.


Lathan, G. (Sheffield, Park)
Picton-Turbervill, Edith
Westwood, Joseph


Law, Albert (Bolton)
Pole, Major D. G.
Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)


Law, A. (Rossendale)
Potts, John S.
Whiteley, William (Blaydon)


Lawrence, Susan
Price, M. P.
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Lawrle, Hugh Hartley (Stalybridge)
Pybus, Percy John
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Lawson, John James
Quibell, D. J. K.
Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)


Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle)
Ramsay, T. B. Wilson
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Leach, W.
Rathbone, Eleanor
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Lee, Frank (Derby, N. E.)
Raynes, W. R.
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern)
Richards, R.
Wilson, J. (Oldham)


Lees, J.
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Leonard, W.
Riley, Ben (Dewsbury)
Winterton, G. E.(Leicester, Loughb'gh)


Lloyd, C. Ellis
Riley, F. F. (Stockton-on-Tees)
Wise, E. F.


Logan, David Gilbert
Ritson, J.
Wood, Major McKenzie (Banff)


Longbottom, A. W.
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich)
Young, R. S. (Islington, North)


Longden, F.
Romeril, H. G.



Lovat-Fraser, J. A.
Rosbotham, D. S. T.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Lunn, William
Rowson, Guy
Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr.


MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)
Salter, Dr. Alfred
B. Smith.


MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)
Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)



NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Bevan, S. J. (Holborn)
Bullock, Captain Malcolm


Ainsworth, Lieut.-Col. Charles
Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman
Burton, Colonel H. W.


Albery, Irving James
Boothby, R. J. G.
Butler, R. A.


Allen, Lt.-Col. Sir William (Armagh)
Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart
Campbell, E. T.


Aske, Sir Robert
Bowyer, Captain Sir George E. W.
Carver, Major W. H.


Atholl, Duchess of
Bracken, B.
Castle Stewart, Earl of


Atkinson, C.
Braithwaite, Major A. N.
Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley (Bewdley)
Briscoe, Richard George
Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth, S.)


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Broadbent, Colonel J.
Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord H. (Ox. Univ.)


Balniel, Lord
Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir J. A. (Birm., W.)


Beaumont, M. W.
Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)


Bellairs, Commander Carlyon
Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Chapman, Sir S.


Betterton, Sir Henry B.
Buchan, John
Christie, J. A.




Clydesdale, Marquess of
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Herbert, Sir Dennis (Hertford)
Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)


Cohen, Major J. Brunel
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.
Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell


Colfox, Major William Philip
Hore-Belisha, Leslie.
Ross, Ronald D.


Colville, Major D. J.
Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Cooper, A. Duff
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Russell, Richard John (Eddisbury)


Courtauld, Major J. S.
Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer
Salmon, Major I.


Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.
Hurd, Percy A.
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Cowan, D. M.
Hurst, Sir Gerald B.
Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart


Cranborne, Viscount
Inskip, Sir Thomas
Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. D.


Crichton-Stuart, Lord C.
Iveagh, Countess of
Savery, S. S.


Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)
Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.


Crookshank, Capt. H. C.
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Sheppereon, Sir Ernest Whittoms


Croom-Johnson, R. P.
Kedward, R. M. (Kent, Ashford)
Skelton, A. N.


Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)
Lamb, Sir J. Q.
Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)


Cunliffe-Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.
Smith, R. W.(Aberd'n & Klnc'dine, C.)


Dalrymple-White, Lt.-Col. Sir Godfrey
Latham, H. P. (Scarboro' & Whitby)
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. (Hertford)
Law, Sir Alfred (Derby, High Peak)
Smithers, Waldron


Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
Lewis, Oswald (Colchester)
Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)


Dawson, Sir Philip
Llewellin, Major J. J.
Southby, Commander A. R. J.


Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F.
Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey
Spender-Clay, Colonel H.


Dudgeon, Major C. R.
Lockwood, Captain J. H.
Stanley, Hon. O (Westmorland)


Dugdale, Capt. T. L.
Long, Major Hon. Eric
Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur


Edmondson, Major A. J.
McConnell, Sir Joseph
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Elliot, Major walter E.
Macdonald, Sir M. (Inverness)
Sueter, Rear-Admiral M. F.


Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston- s-M.)
Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)
Taylor, Vice-Admiral E A.


Everard, W. Lindsay
Margesson, Captain H. D.
Thomas, Major L. B. (King's Norton)


Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Marjoribanks, Edward
Thompson, Luke


Ferguson, Sir John
Mason, Colonel Glyn K.
Thomson, Mitchell-, Rt. Hon. Sir W.


Fielden, E. B.
Merriman, Sir F. Boyd
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Forestier-Walker, Sir L.
Milne, Wardlaw-, J. S.
Train, J.


Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B.
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Ganzonl, Sir John
Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)
Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon


Gault, Lieut.-Col. A. Hamilton
Morris, Rhys Hopkins
Wallace, Capt. D. E. (Hornsey)


Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Morrison, W. S, (Glos., Cirencester)
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert


Gower, Sir Robert
Muirhead, A. J.
Warrender, Sir Victor


Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G. (Ptrst'ld)
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Greaves-Lord, Sir walter
O'Connor, T. J.
Wayland, Sir William A.


Grentell, Edward C. (City of London)
Oman, Sir Charles William C.
Wells, Sydney R.


Gritten, W. G. Howard
O'Neill, Sir H.
Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)


Gunston, Captain D. W.
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William
Windsor Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Peake, Capt. Osbert
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount


Hammersley, S. S.
Perkins, W. R. D.
Womersley, W. J.


Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Hartington, Marquess of
Pownall, Sir Assheton
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton


Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Ramsbotham, H.



Haslam, Henry C.
Remer, John R.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Henderson, Capt. R. R,(Oxf'd, Henley)
Reynolds, Col. Sir James
Sir Frederick Thomson and Sir George Penny.

The CHAIRMAN then proceeded successively to put forthwith the Questions necessary to dispose of the business to be concluded at half-past Ten of the clock; at this day's Sitting.

Question put, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 271; Noes, 189.

Division No. 325.]
AYES.
[10.43 p.m.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (File, West)
Broad, Francis Alfred
Daggar, George


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Brockway, A. Fenner
Dallas, George


Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher
Bromfield, William
Dalton, Hugh


Altchison, Rt. Hon. Craige M.
Bromley, J.
Davies, E. C. (Montgomery)


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (Hillsbro')
Brooke, W.
Davies, D. L. (Pontypridd)


Alpass, J. H.
Brothers, M.
Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)


Ammon, Charles George
Brown, C. W. E. (Notts. Mansfield)
Day, Harry


Angell, Sir Norman
Buchanan, G.
Denman, Hon. R. D.


Arnott, John
Burgess, F. G.
Dudgeon, Major C. R.


Attlee, Clement Richard
Burgin, Dr. E. L.
Dukes, C.


Ayles, walter
Buxton, C. R. (Yorks. W. R. Elland)
Duncan, Charles


Baker, John (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
Caine, Hall-, Derwent
Ede, James Chuter


Barnes, Alfred John
Cameron, A. G.
Edmunds, J. E.


Barr, James
Cape, Thomas
Edwards, E. (Morpeth)


Batey, Joseph
Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S. W.)
Egan, W. H.


Benn, Rt. Hon. Wedgwood
Charleton, H. C.
Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)


Bennett, Sir E. N. (Cardiff, Central)
Chater, Daniel
Foot, Isaac


Bennett, William (Battersea, South)
Church, Major A. G.
Freeman, Peter


Benson, G.
Clarke, J. S.
Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)


Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)
Cluse, W. S.
George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)


Blinden, James
Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesea)


Bondfield, Rt. Hon. Margaret
Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Gill, T. H.


Bowen, J. W.
Cove, William G.
Gillett, George M.


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Cripps, Sir Stafford
Glassey, A. E.


Gossling, A. G.
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)
Samuel, H. Waiter (Swansea, West)


Gould, F.
MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)
Sanders, W. S.


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
McElwee, A.
Sandharn, E.


Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)
McEntee, V. L.
Sawyer, G. F.


Gray, Milner
McGovern, J. (Glasgow, Shettieston)
Sexton, Sir James


Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Colne).
MacLaren, Andrew
Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Maclean, Sir Donald (Cornwall, N.)
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis


Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro' W.)
MacNeill-Weir, L.
Sherwood, G. H.


Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)
Shield, George William


Groves, Thomas E.
Mander, Geoffrey le M.
Shillaker, J. F.


Grundy, Thomas W.
Manning, E. L.
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Mansfield, W.
Simmons, C. J.


Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)
March, S.
Sinclair, Sir A. (Caithness)


Hall, Capt. W. P. (Portsmouth, C.)
Marcus, M.
Sinkinson, George


Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Zetland)
Markham, S. F.
Sitch, Charles H.


Harbord, A.
Marley, J.
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)


Hardie, David (Rutherglen)
Marshall, Fred
Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)


Hardie, G. D. (Springburn)
Mathers, George
Smith, Lees-, Rt. Hon. H. B. (Keighley)


Harris, Percy A.
Matters, L. W.
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)


Hastings, Dr. Somerville
Maxton, James
Smith, Tom (Pontafract)


Haycock, A. W.
Messer, Fred
Smith, W. R. (Norwich)


Hayes, John Henry
Middleton, G.
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)
Mills, J. E.
Snowden, Thomas (Accrington)


Henderson, Arthur, Junr. (Cardiff, S.)
Milner, Major J.
Sorensen, R.


Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow)
Montague, Frederick
Stamford, Thomas W.


Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield)
Morgan, Dr. H. B.
Stephen, Campbell


Herriotts, J.
Morley, Ralph
Strauss, G. R.


Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth)
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Hackney, S.)
Sullivan, J.


Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Morrison, Robert C. (Tottenham, N.)
Sutton, J. E.


Hoffman, P. C.
Mort, D. L.
Taylor, R. A, (Lincoln)


Hollins, A.
Muff, G.
Taylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S. W.)


Hopkin, Daniel
Muggeridge, H. T.
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plalstow)


Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)
Murnin, Hugh
Thurtle, Ernest


Hunter, Dr. Joseph
Nathan, Major H. L.
Tillett, Ben


Isaacs, George
Naylor, T. E.
Tinker, John Joseph


Jenkins, Sir William
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Toole, Joseph


John, William (Rhondda, West)
Noel Baker, P. J.
Tout, W. J.


Johnston, Rt. Hon. Thomas
Noel-Buxton, Baroness (Norfolk, N.)
Townend, A. E.


Jones, Llewellyn-, F.
Oldfield, J. R.
Vaughan, David


Jones, Rt. Hon. Lelf (Camborne)
Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston)
Viant, S. P.


Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W.
Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley)
Walkden, a. G.


Jowitt, Rt. Hon. Sir W. A. (Preston)
Owen, Major G. (Carnarvon)
Walker, J.


Kelly, W. T.
Palin, John Henry
Wallace, H. w.


Kennedy, Rt. Hon. Thomas
Palmer, E. T.
Watkins, F. C.


Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Kinley, J.
Perry, S. F.
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhoondda)


Kirkwood, D.
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Wellock, Wilfred


Knight, Holford
Phillips, Dr. Marion
Weish, James (Paisley)


Lang, Gordon
Picton-Turbervill, Edith
West, F. R.


Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Pole, Major D. G.
Westwood, Joseph


Lathan, G. (Sheffield, Park)
Potts, John S.
Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)


Law, Albert (Bolton)
Price, M. P.
Whiteley, William (Blaydon)


Law, A. (Rossendale)
Pybus, Percy John
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Lawrence, Susan
Quibell, D. J. K.
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Lawrle, Hugh Hartley (Stalybridge)
Ramsay, T. B. Wilson
Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)


Lawson, John James
Rathbone, Eleanor
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle)
Raynes, W. R.
Williams, T. (York. Don Valley)


Leach, W.
Richards, R.
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Lee, Frank (Derby, N. E.)
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern)
Riley, Ben (Dewsbury)
Winterton, G. E.(Leicester, Loughb'gh)


Lees, J.
Riley, F. F. (Stockton-on-Tees)
Wise, E. F.


Leonard, W.
Ritson, J.
Wood, Major McKenzie (Banff)


Lloyd, C. Ellis
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich)
Young, R. S. (Islington, North)


Logan, David Gilbert
Romeril, H. G.



Longbottom, A. W.
Rosbotham, D. S. T.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Longden, F.
Rowson, Guy
Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr.


Lovat-Fraser, J. A.
Salter, Dr. Alfred
Paling.


Lunn, William
Samuel Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)



NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Be[...]terton, Sir Henry B.
Buchan, John


Ainsworth, Lieut.-Col. Charles
Bevan, S. J. (Holborn)
Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.


Albery, Irving James
Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman
Bullock, Captain Malcolm


Allen, Lt.-Col. Sir William (Armagh)
Boothby, R. J. G.
Butler, R. A.


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward


Aske, Sir Robert
Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart
Campbell, E. T.


Atholl, Duchess of
Bowyer, Captain Sir George E. W.
Carver, Major W. H.


Atkinson, C.
Bracken, B.
Castle Stewart, Earl of


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley (Bewdley)
Braithwaite, Major A. N.
Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Briscoe, Richard George
Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth, S)


Balniel, Lord
Broadbent, Colonel J.
Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord H. (Ox. Univ.)


Beaumont, M. W.
Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir J. A. (Birm., W.)


Bellairs, Commander Carlyon
Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)
Chamberlain, Rt Hon. N. (Edgbaston)




Chapman, Sir S.
Henderson, Capt. R. R.(Oxl'd, Henley)
Remer, John R.


Christie, J. A.
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Reynolds, Col. Sir James


Clydesdale, Marquess or
Herbert, Sir Dennis (Hertford)
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.
Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)


Cohen, Major J. Brunel
Hore-Belisha, Leslie
Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell


Colfox, Major William Philip
Howard, Bury, Colonel C. K.
Rost, Ronald D.


Colvllie, Major D. J.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Cooper, A. Duff
Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer
Russell, Richard John (Eddisbury)


Courtauld, Major J. S.
Hurd, Percy A.
Salmon, Major I.


Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.
Hurst, Sir Gerald B.
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Cowan, D. M.
Inskip, Sir Thomas
Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart


Cranborne, Viscount
Iveagh, Countess of
Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. D.


Crichton-Stuart, Lord C.
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)
Savery, S. S.


Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Shepperson, Sir Ernest Whittome


Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Galnsbro)
Kedward, R. M. (Kent, Ashford)
Skelton, A. N.


Croom-Johnson, H. P.
Lamb, Sir J. Q
Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)


Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)
Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.
Smith, R. W.(Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)


Cunliffe-Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Latham, H. P. (Scarboro' & Whitby)
Smith-Carington. Neville W.


Dalkeith, Earl of
Law, Sir Alfred (Derby, High Peak)
Smithers, Waldron


Dalrymple-White, Lt.-Col. Sir Godfrey
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. (Hertford)
Lewis, Oswald (Colchester)
Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)


Davies, Maj. Geo. F.(Somerset, Yeovil)
Llewellin, Major J. J.
Southby, Commander A. R. J.


Davison, Sir w. H. (Kensington, S.)
Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey
Spender-Clay, Colonel H.


Dawson, Sir Philip
Lockwood, Captain J. H.
Stanley, Hon. O. (Westmorland)


Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F.
Long, Major Hon. Eric
Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur


Dug dale, Capt. T. L.
McConnell, Sir Joseph
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Macdonald, Sir M. (Inverness)
Sueter, Rear-Admiral M. F.


Elliot, Major Walter E.
Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)
Taylor, Vice-Admiral E. A.


Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s. M.)
Margesson, Captain H. D.
Thomas, Major L. B. (King's Norton)


Everard, W. Lindsay
Marjoribanks, Edward
Thompson, Luke


Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Mason, Colonel Glyn K.
Thomson, Mitchell-, Rt. Hon. Sir W.


Fergusan, Sir John
Merriman, Sir F. Boyd
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Fielden, E. B.
Milne, Wardlaw-, J. S.
Train, J.


Forestier-Walker, Sir L.
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B.
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)
Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon


Ganzonl, Sir John
Morris, Rhys Hopkins
Wallace, Capt. D. E. (Hornsey)


Gauit, Lieut.-Col. A. Hamilton
Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert


Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Morrison, W. S. (Glos., Cirencester)
Warrender, Sir Victor


G[...]wer, Sir Robert
Muirhead, A. J.
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Greaves-Lord, Sir walter
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)
Wayland, Sir William A.


Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)
Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G.(Ptrsf'ld)
Wells, Sydney R.


Gritten, W. G. Howard
O'Connor, T. J.
Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)


Guinness, Rt. Hon. walter E.
Oman, Sir Charles William C.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Gunston, Captain D. W.
O'Neill, Sir H.
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William
Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount


Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)
Peake, Capt Osbert
Womersley, W. J.


Hammersley, S. S.
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Perkins, W. R. D.
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton


Hartington, Marquess of
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)



Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Pownall, Sir Assheton
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Haslam, Henry C.
Ramsbotham, H.
Sir Frederick Thomson and Sir George Penny.

Clause 28 (Application to Crown Lands) ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 29.—(Provisions as to expenses.)

Question put, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 280; Noes, 178.

Division No. 326.]
AYES.
[10.54 p.m.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (File, West)
Bondfield, Rt. Hon. Margaret
Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.


Adamson, W. M, (Staff., Cann[...]k)
Bowen, J. W.
Cocks, Frederick Seymour


Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher
Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Cove, William G.


Altchison, Rt. Hon. Craigle M.
Broad, Francis Alfred
Cowan, D. M.


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (Hl[...]sbro')
Bromfield, William
Cripps, Sir Stafford


Alpass, J. H.
Bromley, J.
Daggar, George


Ammon, Charles George
Brooke, W.
Dallas, George


Angell, Sir Norman
Brothers, M.
Dalton, Hugh


Arnott, John
Brown, C. W. E. (Notts. Mansfield)
Davies, E. C. (Montgomery)


Aske, Sir Robert
Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Davies, D. L. (Pontypridd)


Attice, Clement Richard
Buchanan, G.
Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)


Ayles, walter
Burgess, F. G.
Day, Harry


Baker, John (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
Burgin, Dr. E. L.
Denman, Hon. R. D.


Barnes, Alfred John
Buxton, C. R. (Yorks. W. R. Elland)
Dudgeon, Major C. R.


Barr, James
Caine, Hall-, Derwent
Dukes, C.


Batey, Joseph
Cameron, A. G.
Duncan, Charles


Benn, Rt. Hon. Wedgwood
Cape, Thomas
Ede, James Chuter


Bennett, Sir E. N. (Cardiff, Central)
Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S. W.)
Edmunds, J. E.


Bennett, William (Battersea, South)
Chater, Daniel
Edwards, E. (Morpeth)


Benson, G.
Church, Major A. G.
Egan, W. H.


Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)
Clarke, J. S.
Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer,)


Blindell, James
Cluse, W. S.
Foot, Isaac


Freeman, Peter
Lecnard, W
Rosbotham, D. S. T.


Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)
Lloyd, C. Ellis
Rowson, Guy


Gardner, J. P. (Hammersmith, N.)
Logan, David Gilbert
Russell, Richard John (Eddisbury)


George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Longbottom, A. W.
Salter, Dr. Alfred


George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesea)
Longden, F.
Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)


Gill, T. H.
Lovat-Fraser, J. A.
Samuel, H. walter (Swansea, West)


Gillett, George M.
Lunn, William
Sanders, W. S.


Glassey, A. E.
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)
Sandham, E.


Gossling, A. G.
MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)
Sawyer, G. F.


Gould, F.
McElwee, A.
Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
McEntee, V. L.
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis


Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)
McGovern, J. (Glasgow, Shettleston)
Sherwood, G. H.


Gray, Milner
MacLaren, Andrew
Shield, George William


Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Colne).
Maclean, Sir Donald (Cornwall, N.)
Shillaker, J. F.


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
MacNeill-Weir, L.
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro' W.)
Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)
Simmons, C. J.


Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Mander, Geoffrey le M.
Simon, E. D. (Manch'ter, Withington)


Groves, Thomas E.
Manning, E. L.
Sinclair, Sir A. (Caithness)


Grundy, Thomas W.
Mansfield, W.
Sinkinson, George


Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
March, S.
Sitch, Charles H.


Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)
Marcus, M.
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)


Hall, Capt. W. G. (Portsmouth, C.)
Markham, S. F.
Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)


Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Zetland)
Marley, J.
Smith, Lees-, Rt. Hon. H. B. (Keighley)


Harbord, A.
Marshall, Fred
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)


Hardie, David (Ruthergten)
Mathers, George
Smith, Tom (Pontetract)


Hardie, G. D. (Springburn)
Matters, L. W.
Smith, W. R. (Norwich)


Harris, Percy A.
Maxton, James
Snowden, Thomas (Accrington)


Hastings, Dr. Somerville
Messer, Fred
Sorensen, R.


Haycock, A. W.
Middleton, G.
Stamford, Thomas W.


Hayes, John Henry
Mills, J. E.
Stephen, Campbell


Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)
Milner, Major J.
Strauss, G. R.


Henderson, Arthur, Junr. (Cardiff, S.)
Montague, Frederick
Sullivan, J.


Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow)
Morgan, Dr. H. B.
Sutton, J. E.


Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield)
Morley, Ralph
Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln)


Herriotts, J.
Morris, Rhys Hopkins
Taylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S. W.)


Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth)
Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)


Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Hackney, S.)
Thurtle, Ernest


Hoffman, P. C.
Morrison, Robert C. (Tottenham, N.)
Tillett, Ben


Hollins, A.
Mort, D. L.
Tinker, John Joseph


Hopkin, Daniel
Muff, G.
Toole, Joseph


Hore-Belisha, Leslie
Muggeridge, H. T.
Tout, W. J.


Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)
Murnin, Hugh
Townend, A. E.


Hunter, Dr. Joseph
Nathan, Major H. L.
Vaughan, David


Isaacs, George
Naylor, T. E.
Viant, S. P.


Jenkins, Sir William
Noel Baker, P. J.
Walkden, A. G.


John, William (Rhondda, West)
Noel-Buxton, Baroness (Norfolk, N.)
Walker, J.


Johnston, Rt. Hon. Thomas
Oldfield, J. R.
Wallace, H. w.


Jones, Llewellyn-, F.
Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston)
Watkins, F. C.


Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley)
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Jones, Rt. Hon. Lelf (Camborne)
Owen, Major G. (Carnarvon)
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W.
Palin, John Henry
Wellock, Wilfred


Jowitt, Rt. Hon. Sir W. A. (Preston)
Paling, Wilfrid
Weish, James (Paisley)


Kedward, R. M. (Kent, Ashford)
Palmer, E. T.
West, F. R.


Kelly, W. T.
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Westwood, Joseph


Kennedy, Rt. Hon. Thomas
Perry, S. F.
Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)


Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Whiteley, William (Blaydon)


Kinley, J.
Phillips, Dr. Marlon
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Kirkwood, D.
Picton-Turbervill, Edith
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Knight, Holford
Pole, Major D. G.
Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)


Lang, Gordon
Potts, John S.
Williams Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Price, M. P.
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Lathan, G. (Sheffield, Park)
Pybus, Percy John
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Law, Albert (Bolton)
Quibell, D. J. K.
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Law, A. (Rossendale)
Ramsay, T. B. Wilson
Winterton, G. E.(Leicester, Loughb'gh)


Lawrence, Susan
Raynes, W. R.
Wise, E. F.


Lawrle, Hugh Hartley (Stalybridge)
Richards, R.
Wood, Major McKenzie (Banff)


Lawson, John James
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Young, R. S. (Islington, North)


Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle)
Riley, Ben (Dewsbury)



Leach, W.
Riley, F. F. (Stockton-on-Tees)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Lee, Frank (Derby, N. E.)
Ritson, J.
Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr.


Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern)
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O.(W. Bromwich)
Charleston.


Lees, J.
Romeril, H. G.



NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Balniel, Lord
Bowyer, Captain Sir George E. W.


Ainsworth, Lieut.-Col. Charles
Beaumont M. W.
Bracken, B.


Albery, Irving James
Bellairs, Commander Carlyon
Braithwaite, Major A. N.


Allen, Lt.-Col. Sir William (Armagh)
Betterton, Sir Henry B.
Briscoe, Richard George


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Bevan, S. J. (Holborn)
Broadbent, Colonel J.


Atholl, Duchess of
Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman
Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)


Atkinson, C.
Boothby, R. J. G.
Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley (Bewdley)
Bourne, Captain Robert Croft.
Buchan, John


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart
Bullock, Captain Malcolm


Butler, B. A.
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Pownall, Sir Assheton


Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)
Ramsbotham, H.


Campbell, E. T.
Hammersley, S. S.
Remer, John R.


Carver, Major W. H.
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Reynolds, Col. Sir James


Castle Stewart, Earl of
Hartington, Marquess of
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)


Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)


Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth, S.)
Haslam, Henry C.
Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord H. (Ox. Univ.)
Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)
Ross, Ronald D.


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir J. A. (Birm., W.)
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)
Herbert, Sir Dennis (Hertford)
Salmon, Major I.


Chapman, Sir S.
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Christie, J. A.
Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.
Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart


Clydesdale, Marquess of
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. D.


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer
Savery, S. S.


Cohen, Major J. Brunei
Hurd, Percy A.
Shepperson, Sir Ernest Whittome


Colfex, Major William Philip
Hurst, Sir Gerald B.
Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)


Colville, Major D. J.
Inskip, Sir Thomas
Smith, R. W.(Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)


Cooper, A. Duff
Iveagh, Countess of
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Courtauld, Major J. S.
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)
Smithers, Waldron


Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.
Lamb, Sir J. Q.
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Cranborne, Viscount
Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.
Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)


Crichton-Stuart, Lord C.
Latham, H. P. (Scarboro' & Whitby)
Southby, Commander A. R. J.


Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Law, Sir Alfred (Derby, High Peak)
Spender-Clay, Colonel H.


Crookshank, Capt. H. C.
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Stanley, Hon. O. (Westmorland)


Croom-Johnson, R. P.
Lewis, Oswald (Colchester)
Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur


Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)
Llewellin, Major J. J.
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Cunliffe-Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey
Sueter, Rear-Admiral M. F.


Dalkeith, Earl of
Lockwood, Captain J. H.
Taylor, Vice-Admiral E. A.


Dalrymple-White, Lt.-Col. Sir Godfrey
Long, Major Hon. Eric
Thomas, Major L. B. (King's Norton)


Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. (Hertford)
McConnell, Sir Joseph
Thompson, Luke


Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Macdonald, Sir M. (Inverness)
Thomson, Mitchell-, Rt. Hon. Sir W.


Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Dawson, Sir Philip
Margesson, Captain H. D.
Train, J.


Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F.
Marjoribanks, Edward
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Dugdale, Capt. T. L.
Mason, Colonel Glyn K.
Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Merriman, Sir F. Boyd
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert


Elliot, Major walter E.
Milne, Wardlaw-, J. S.
Warrender, Sir Victor


Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-S.-M.)
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B.
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Everard, W. Lindsay
Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)
Wayland, Sir William A.


Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Morrison, W. S. (Glos., Cirencester)
Wells, Sydney R.


Ferguson, Sir John
Muirhead, A. J.
Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)


Fielden, E. B.
Newton, Sir D. G. C, (Cambridge)
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Forestler-Walker, Sir L.
Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G. (Ptrsf'ld)
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
O'Connor, T. J.
Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount


Ganzonl, Sir John
Oman, Sir Charles William C.
Womersley, W. J.


Gault, Lieut.-Col. A. Hamilton
O'Neill, Sir H.
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Gilmour, Lt.-Cot. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton


Gower, Sir Robert
Peake, Capt, Osbert



Greaves-Lord, Sir walter
Penny, Sir George
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Gritten, W. G. Howard
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Sir Frederick Thomson and Captain


Guinness, Rt. Hon. walter E.
Perkins, W. R. D.
Wallace.


Gunston, Captain D. W.
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)

Motion made, and Question put, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—[Mr. T. Kennedy.]

The Committee divided: Ayes, 270; Noes, 175.

Division No. 327].
AYES.
[11.4 p.m.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fie, West)
Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Davies, E. C. (Montgomery)


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Broad, Francis Alfred
Davies, D. L. (Pontypridd)


Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher
Brockway, A. Fenner
Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)


Altchison, Rt. Hon. Craigle M.
Bromfield, William
Day, Harry


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (Hillsbro')
Bromley, J.
Denman, Hon. R. D.


Alpass, J. H.
Brooke, W.
Dudgeon, Major C. R.


Ammon, Charles George
Brothers, M.
Dukes, C.


Angell, Sir Norman
Brown, C. W. E. (Notts. Mansfield)
Duncan, Charles


Arnott, John
Buchanan, G.
Ede, James Chuter


Aske, Sir Robert
Burgess, F. G.
Edmunds, J. E.


Attlee, Clement Richard
Burgin, Dr. E. L.
Edwards, E. (Morpeth)


Ayles, walter
Buxton, C. R. (Yorks. W. R. Elland)
Egan, W. H.


Baker, John (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
Caine, Hall-, Derwent
Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)


Barnes, Alfred John
Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S. W.)
Foot, Isaac


Barr, James
Chater, Daniel
Freeman, Peter


Batey, Joseph
Church, Major A. G.
Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)


Benn, Rt. Hon. Wedgwood
Clarke, J. S.
Gardner, J. P. (Hammersmith, N,)


Bennett, Sir E. N. (Cardiff, Central)
Cluse, W. S.
George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)


Bennett, William (Battersea, South)
Cocks, Frederick Seymour
George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesea)


Benson, G.
Cove, William G.
Gill, T. H.


Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)
Cripps, Sir Stafford
Gillett, George M.


Blindell, James
Daggar, George
Glassey, A. E.


Bondfield, Rt. Hon. Margaret
Dallas, George
Gossllng, A. G.


Bowen, J. W.
Dalton, Hugh
Gould, F.


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)
Russell, Richard John (Eddisbury)


Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)
MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Gray, Milner
Macdonald, Sir M. (Inverness)
Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)


Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Coine)
McElwee, A.
Samuel, H. walter (Swansea, West)


Granfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
McEntee, V. L.
Sanders, W. S.


Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro' W.)
McGovern, J. (Glasgow, Shettleston)
Sandham, E.


Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
MacLaren, Andrew
Sawyer, G. F.


Groves, Thomas E.
Maclean, Sir Donald (Cornwall, N.)
Sexton, Sir James


Grundy, Thomas W.
MacNeill-Weir, L.
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis


Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
M alone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)
Sherwood, G. H.


Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)
Mander, Geoffrey le M.
Shield, George William


Hall, Capt. W. G. (Portsmouth, C.)
Manning, E. L.
Shillak[...]r, J. F.


Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Zetland)
Mansfield, W.
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Harbord, A.
March, S.
Simmons, C. J.


Hardie, David (Rutherglen)
Marcus, M.
Sinclair, Sir A. (Caithness)


Hardie, G. D. (Springburn)
Markham, S. F.
Sinkinson, George


Harris, Percy A.
Marley, J.
Sitch, Charles H.


Hastings, Dr. Somerville
Marshall, Fred
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)


Haycock, A. W.
Mathers, George
Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)


Hayes, John Henry
Matters, L. W.
Smith, Lees-, Rt. Hon. H. B. (Keighley)


Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)
Maxton, James
Smith, Rennle (Penistone)


Henderson, Arthur, Junr. (Cardiff, S.)
Messer, Fred
Smith, Tom (Pontefract)


Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow)
Middleton, G.
Smith, W. R. (Norwich)


Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield)
Mills, J. E.
Snowden, Thomas (Accrington)


Herriotts, J.
Milner, Major J.
Sorensen, R.


Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth)
Morgan, Dr. H. B.
Stamford, Thomas W.


Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Morley, Ralph
Stephen, Campbell


Hoffman, P. C.
Morris, Rhys Hopkins
Strauss, G. R.


Hollins, A.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Hackney, S.)
Sullivan, J.


Hopkin, Daniel
Morrison, Robert C. (Tottenham, N.)
Sutton, J. E.


Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)
Mort, D. L.
Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln)


Hunter, Dr. Joseph
Muff, G.
Taylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S. W.)


Isaacs, George
Muggeridge, H. T.
Thorne, W. (West Ham. Plalstow)


Jenkins, Sir William
Murnin, Hugh
Thurtle, Ernest


John, William (Rhondda, West)
Nathan, Major H. L.
Tillett, Ben


Johnston, Rt. Hon. Thomas
Naylor, T. E.
Tinker, John Joseph


Jones, Llewellyn-, F.
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Toole, Joseph


Jones, Rt. Hon. Lelf (Camborne)
Noel Baker, P. J.
Tout, W. J.


Jowelt, Rt. Hon. F. W.
Noel-Buxton, Baroness (Norfolk, N.)
Townend, A. E.


Jowitt, Rt. Hon. Sir W. A. (Preston)
Oldfield, J. R.
Vaughan, David


Kedward, R. M. (Kent, Ashford)
Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston)
Viant, S. P.


Kelly, W. T.
Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley)
Walkden, A. G.


Kennedy, Rt. Hon. Thomas
Palin, John Henry.
Walker, J.


Ken worthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M
Paling, Wilfrid
Wallace, H. W.


Kinley, J.
Palmer, E. T.
Watkins, F. C.


Kirkwood, D.
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Knight, Holford
Perry, S. F.
Watts-Morgan. Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Lang, Gordon
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Wellock, Wilfred


Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Phillips, Dr. Marion
Weish, James (Paisley)


Lathan, G. (Sheffield, Park)
Picton-Turbervill, Edith
West, F. R.


Law, Albert (Bolton)
Pole, Major D. G.
Westwood, Joseph


Law, A. (Rossendale)
Potts, John S.
Whiteley, WilfrId (Birm., Ladywood)


Lawrence, Susan
Price, M. P.
Whiteley, Willam (Blaydon)


Lawrie, Hugh Hartley (Stalybridge)
Pybus, Percy John
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Lawson, John James
Ouibell, D. J. K.
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Lawther, w. (Barnard Castle)
Ramsay, T. B. Wilson
Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)


Leach, W.
Rathbone, Eleanor
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Lee, Frank (Derby, N. E.)
Raynes, W. R.
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern)
Richards, R.
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Lees, J.
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Leonard, W.
Riley, Ben (Dewsbury)
Winterton, G. E.(Leicester, Loughb'gh)


Lloyd, C. Ellis
Riley, F. F. (Stockton-on-Tees)
Wise, E. F.


Logan, David Gilbert
Ritson, J.
Wood, Major McKenzie (Banff)


Longbottom, A. W.
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich)
Young, R. S. (Islington, North)


Longden, F.
Romeril, H. G.



Lovat-Fraser, J. A.
Roshotham, D. S. T.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Lunn, William
Rowson, Guy
Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr. Charleton.


NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman
Butler, R. A.


Ainsworth, Lieut.-Col. Charles
Boothby, R. J. G.
Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward


Albery, Irving James
Bourne, Captain Robert Crott
Campbell, E. T.


Allen, Lt.-Col. Sir William (Armagh)
Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart
Carver, Major W. H.


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Bowyer, Captain Sir George E. W.
Castle Stewart, Earl of


Atholl, Duchess of
Bracken, B.
Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)


Atkinson, C.
Braithwaite, Major A. N.
Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth S.)


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley (Bewdley)
Briscoe, Richard George
Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord H. (Ox. Univ.)


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Broadbent, Colonel J.
Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir J. A. (Birm. W.)


Balniel, Lord
Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)


Beaumont, M. W.
Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)
Chapman, Sir S.


Bellairs, Commander Carlyon
Buchan, John
Christie, J. A.


Betterton, Sir Henry B.
Buchan-Hepburn, p. G. T.
Clydesdale, Marquess of


Bevan, S. J. (Holborn)
Bullock, Captain Malcolm
Cohen, Major J. Brunei




Colfax, Major William Philip
Hore-Belisha, Leslie.
Ross, Ronald D.


Colville, Major D. J.
Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Cooper, A. Duff
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M.(Hackney, N.)
Salmon, Major I.


Courtauld, Major J. S.
Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.
Hurd, Percy A.
Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart


Cranborne, Viscount
Inskip, Sir Thomas
Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. D.


Crichton-stuart, Lord C.
Iveagh, Countess of
Savery, S. S.


Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)
Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.


Crookshank, Capt. H. C.
Lamb, Sir J. Q.
Shepperson, Sir Ernest Whittome


Croom-Johnson, R. P.
Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.
Skelton, A. N.


Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)
Latham, H. P. (Scarboro' & Whitby)
Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)


Cunliffe-Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Law, Sir Alfred (Derby, High Peak)
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)


Dalkeith, Earl of
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Datrymple-White, Lt.-Col. Sir Godfrey
Lewis, Oswald (Colchester)
Smithers, Waldron


Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. (Hertford)
Lleweilln, Major J. J.
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey
Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)


Dawson, Sir Philip
Lockwood, Captain J. H.
Southby, Commander A. R. J.


Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F.
Long, Major Hon. Eric
Spender-Clay, Colonel H.


Dugdale, Capt. T. L.
McConnell, Sir Joseph
Stanley, Hon. O. (Westmorland)


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)
Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur


Elliot, Major walter E.
Margesson, Captain H. D.
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Marjorbianks, Edward
Sueter, Rear- Admiral M. F.


Ferguson, Sir John
Mason, Colonel Glyn K.
Taylor, Vice-Admiral E. A.


Fielden, E. B.
Merriman, Sir F. Boyd
Thomas, Major L. B. (King's Norton)


Forestler-Walker, Sir L.
Milne, Wardtaw-, J. S.
Thompson, Luke


Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B.
Thomson, Mitchell-, Rt. Hon. Sir W.


Ganzonl, Sir John
Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Gault, Lieut.-Col. A. Hamilton
Morrison, W. S. (Glos., Cirencester)
Train, J.


Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Muirhead, A. J.
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Gower, Sir Robert
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)
Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon


Greaves-Lord, Sir walter
O'Connor, T. J.
Wallace, Capt. D. E. (Hornsey)


Gritten, W. G. Howard
Oman, Sir Charles William C.
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert


Guinness, Rt. Hon. walter E.
O'Neill, Sir H.
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Gunston, Captain D. W.
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William
Wayland, Sir William A.


Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Peake, Captain Osbert
Wells, Sydney R.


Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)
Penny, Sir George
Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)


Hammersley, S. S.
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Hartington, Marquess of
Pownall, Sir Assheton
Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount


Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Ramsbotham, H.
Womersley, W. J.


Haslam, Henry C.
Remer, John R.
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Henderson, Capt. R. R. oxf'd, Henley)
Reynolds, Col. Sir James
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton


Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'te'y)



Herbert, Sir Dennis (Hertford)
Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES—


Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.
Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell
Sir Frederick Thomson and Sir Victor Warrender.


Question put, and agreed to.

Committee accordingly report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.

CHURCH OF ENGLAND ASSEMBLY (POWERS) ACT, 1919.

Lord HUGH CECIL: I beg to move,
That this House directs that the Cathedrals Measure be presented to His Majesty for the Royal Assent, in accordance with the provisions of the Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act, 1919.
This Measure is one which, in its main purpose and outline, is very simple, though its details and machinery are complicated. The main purpose of it is to follow the precedent which Parliament has already set in respect of the universities, for example, that is, to set up a commission by which reforms in the constitution of the cathedrals may be carried through, but whereas in respect of the universities the commission was given compulsory powers to carry through reforms, in this Measure, except in two respects, the scheme of the commission depends upon the consent of the
cathedral bodies or what are called in the Measure the consenting bodies. These consenting bodies in respect of the ancient cathedrals are the dean and chapter; in respect of the new cathedrals, what are called the parish church cathedrals, a body consisting of the bishop, wardens, two representatives of the parochial church council and other persons. The scheme made is submitted to the Privy Council after the security of proper publication and of the Church Assembly being able to interfere to prevent its going through, and by a delay which is required until the Church Assembly has sat. Finally, after it has been submitted to the Privy Council, and inquired into by the Council, if it be approved it is then laid before the Houses of Parliament, and anyone can take the opportunity of dissenting from a scheme. Schemes, therefore, are carefully safeguarded. Nothing can be passed which has not been scrutinised. The details of the Measure are highly complicated, but, broadly speaking, a scheme can extend to anything which cathedrals
can do, and to the reforms which many people desire to see introduced into the cathedrals. When I say that they extend, it means that the Commissioners are allowed to introduce those reforms or are allowed to organise the existing functions of the cathedral. All that has to be done by consent, and under the supervision of the Privy Council, and, ultimately, of Parliament.
Only in two respects do the Commissioners act compulsorily. They transfer all the land which is at present under the management of the cathedrals, or the minor corporations comprised within the cathedral bodies, to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, unless the land is actually in the precincts of the cathedral. In that case it goes to the cathedral bodies themselves—that is, the dean and chapter. The second compulsory provision is that the minor corporations are to be either dissolved or reconstituted, but no one disputes that they need reform. The exact measure of reform is a matter of dispute, and that is left to the Commissioners to decide, and they will submit their conclusions to the Privy Council according to the process that I have described.
These are the main provisions of the Measure. They give an opportunity of reform by consent and by general good will of these very ancient bodies. The diversity of organisation, which would take too long to describe to the House, has been carefully inquired into by the Church Assembly, not only through a commission set up by the Church Assembly, but by a variety of sub-committees which travelled the country and saw every cathedral, and inquired into its particular circumstances. It is not at all desired that there should be a standardised type of cathedral, which would be deplorable. It is desired that our ancient cathedrals, in so far as their constitution is efficient, should be preserved, but that the scheme should be carried through with every possible regard to the feelings of those who have, naturally, sentimental regard for the cathedrals being made more effective than they are at present for the education of the people, for the good of the Church, and for the glory of God.

Mr. SIMMONS: There are several doubts in my mind as to the scope of this Measure which some of those whose
names are attached to this Resolution may be able to clear away. I would like to know whether the reforms include taking the emblems of militarism out of cathedrals, and whether the enormous amount of time now spent in church parades in our cathedrals will be devoted, as the Noble Lord said in winding up his remarks, to the glory of God, and not to the glory of Mars. During the War period guns were actually placed in our cathedrals and I wish to know whether this Measure will make such a proceeding in the future an absolute impossibility in a Christian assembly or a Christian edifice. Those are one or two questions which I think are deserving of the careful consideration of those who are promoting this Measure and asking that His Majesty should give it his Royal Assent.

Mr. KEDWARD: I rise only to offer a protest against a complicated Measure of 31 Clauses being introduced at this late hour. How can hon. Members expect this House to exercise any control over the National Church when only a few minutes are available for a Measure of this kind and we have to take everything for granted? All sorts of things arise on this Measure—the method of electing Bishops, the method of transferring hundreds of thousands of pounds' worth of property, certain exemptions, the question of depriving a number of people of office, and on all these points we have no means of knowing what this complicated Measure does. I would like to ask why, when they arranged for the transference of the property of the cathedrals, and they saw fit to exempt tithe rent-charge and other rent charges, such tithes and payments in lieu of tithes were vested in Queen Anne's Bounty. It seems to me that it is setting up a dual control so far as the so-called property of the cathedrals is concerned between Queen Anne's Bounty and the Ecclesiastical Commissioners. With all these points involved the House ought to demand ample opportunity for going into the matter. If not, the time must come when this farce must end. The House ought either to be responsible for these Measures and for the National Church and take an interest in them and discuss them, or else the ties should be cut and the Church should be free to pursue her own way and develop her policy without the interference of this House.

Mr. LOVAT-FRASER: There is one matter upon which I should like some information and on which I should like to give the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Oxford University (Lord H. Cecil) an opportunity of giving satisfaction to the House.

Clause 21, Sub-section (2) provides:
The Ecclesiastical Commissioners shall have power to pay out of their common fund to any Commissioner such remuneration and such allowances as they may think fit, and in any case where the Ecclesiastical Commissioners exercise the power conferred on them by this Sub-section they may pay the remuneration or allowances either periodically over periods to be determined by them or otherwise as they may think fit.
The Measure provides that six Commissioners shall be appointed, and it gives their names. I am anxious to know if those six Commissioners are to be provided with salaries under the Clause I have read, and, if so, is six not an unduly large number? Could that business not be done with a smaller number of Commissioners?

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I would like to refer to what was said by the hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Ked-ward). I sympathise with what the hon. Member said about this Measure being brought before the House at this time of night, and perhaps that accounts for the hon. Member not having quite grasped the information, because he says that this Measure deprives certain people of office. May I point out to the hon. Member that Clause 25 makes it clear that no one holding office is to be deprived of his rights without his consent in writing.

Mrs. MANNING: I have not had sufficient time to go deeply into this Measure, but I have read Clause 23 which provides for the election of bishops, and I should have thought that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Oxford University (Lord H. Cecil) would have inserted in that Clause some facilities for the appointment of women as bishops. It is a matter of deep disappointment to me that, when this matter comes before the House, we should find the Noble Lord recalcitrant in regard to the question of women in the Church and their preferment to positions to which they have a perfect right, and where I am sure they could perform their duties to the glory of God just as well as the bishops. It is a matter of deep disappointment to
me to find that women are not included. I have not had time to search the Measure thoroughly, and I would like to ask the Noble Lord if this point has escaped my attention.

Mr. MANDER: I regret that it has not been found possible to take this Measure at an earlier hour. I think we might have taken it at 7.30 some evening when I believe the discussion would not have lasted more than an hour. I think that on some future occasion we might try such a reasonable experiment. There are other occasions on which this Measure might have been discussed. Last Friday and last night the House adjourned early. If this Measure had been starred by the Government, it would have been possible to take it on either of those occasions. I hope that in future the Government will consider the possibility of starring a Measure of this kind, not by way of supporting it, but in order that it may have an opportunity of coming on at a reasonable hour. I notice that the Ecclesiastical Committee in their report state that they are of opinion that the rights of His Majesty's subjects are "duly" protected. The words which are usually adopted are "fully protected." I understand that there is no longer any criticism on the matter of the minor Canons and I agree that it is reasonable that future occupants of these offices should have their services terminated when, for example, they have lost their voices, which renders them incapable of performing the duties for which they were appointed. The question might also be raised as to whether there are not other dignitaries of the Church who might be called upon to terminate their services at a time when for other reasons they may be no longer capable of carrying on their functions.
As regards the question of expenditure, a number of Measures have come from the Assembly to this House setting up new or reviving old Departments, and involving expenditure and appointments of staff. There have been Queen Anne's Bounty and the Pensions Board, and now a new body is to be set up, and money will have to be provided from funds which would otherwise be available for the payment of the salaries of the poorer clergy. I shall be glad to know how far the Noble Lord is going to take the House in reducing the funds which
are available for proper purposes of this kind at the present time. It is said that this Commission is to be only temporary, for seven or 12 years, but does anyone really think that, once it is set up, it is likely to be terminated, either then or at any other time? We ought to regard it with very careful scrutiny.
Then there is the question whether, under the schemes which are to be put in operation under this Measure, it will be possible to protect the valuable property which these cathedrals own at the present time, and to prevent the sort of action that has recently been taken by the Dean of York, when, entirely on his own responsibility and without, as probably most people think, any proper regard to the possibilities of keeping the Caxtons in this country, he sold them for money to America. I think the Noble Lord ought to tell the House whether it will be possible to include, in the schemes under this Measure, provisions which will prevent the sale of treasures from the libraries of the cathedrals, or other valuable articles which they may possess, without the consent of an authoritative body, and will prevent these matters from being left, as often happens now, in the sole discretion of the Dean.

Mr. EDE: I regret that the hon. Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Mander) has not moved the Adjournment of the Debate. I think it is quite wrong that a Measure of 31 Clauses and three Schedules—the third of which latter wipes out two Acts of Parliament which were passed under the older conditions relating to ecclesiastical Measures, and which had to go through a full course in this House and elsewhere and receive the Royal Assent—should be submitted to us in this manner at this hour of the night. We have a report from the Ecclesiastical Committee which runs to 11 pages. That shows the complicated nature of the issues involved. It seems to me that, unless we are very careful, many of us will be reduced, in dealing with these matters, to the state of virtuous indignation manifested by the Noble Lord the other night on purely secular issues. Up to the present we have managed to preserve at least the outward show of Christian charity when we have had to oppose these Measures,
but I am bound to say that, as each succeeding one comes up, one realises the fact that very big issues are involved and are presented to us, "take it or leave it," either very late at night or in the early hours of the morning.
This is a very important Measure. It deals with some cathedrals which may be ancient bodies, but I see that there is one, the Cathedral of Guildford, which, at any rate, is quite a modern creation. There is an attempt to put new wine into old Bottles and new bottles. I do not know whether there is a desire to see whether the fermentation of the same wine in very different bottles is going to have any effect on the quality of the wine, but it certainly seems to me to be a matter that ought not to be submitted to us at this hour of the night when it is obvious that, no matter how effective the Guillotine may be on other occasions, the guillotine that one feels exerted upon oneself by the desire of Members to prepare for the labours of to-morrow by seeking their couch at a reasonably early hour restricts one in dealing with the situation. The first Sub-section of Clause 12 reads:
The Commisioners shall, as soon as is practicable after the passing of this Measure, frame and submit to His Majesty in Council in manner laid down by this Measure schemes under this Measure providing for the compulsory transfer to and vesting in the Ecclesiastical Commissioners of the endowments to which this Section applies for such consideration, whether consisting of a money payment or annuities or other property not being land, as may be laid down by such schemes, and for all matters incidental to such compulsory transfer.
As far as I can gather, the further process of such transfer is to be removed entirely from the control of Parliament and is to be dealt with, if there is a dispute, by a person appointed by each side, and, if they cannot agree, by an umpire without, as far as I can see, bringing it back to Parliament again for its consideration. His late lamented Majesty King Henry VIII is mentioned in the Measure. It seems to me this might almost be a Measure after his own heart. He would come to Parliament, like the Church Assembly comes, for just as much as it pleases and, having got it from Parliament, would be content to go on ignoring it in this matter ever afterwards. I hope the Church Assembly will realise that it is putting a great strain upon,
I believe, an increasing number of Members when Measures of this importance are submitted to us in this form and with so inadequate an opportunity for having them fully explained to us.

Mr. BRACKEN: The hon. Member has inflicted a number of severe pedagogic censures on the Noble Lord and the Church Assembly, but the whole- responsibility for the lateness of the Measure rests upon his own Government. When he refers to the inconvenience of Members, he should also realise the enormous inconvenience to which the Church Assembly is put by having to wait for these Measures until Parliament can deal with them. We delegate these responsibilities to the Church Assembly, and we ought not to raise small debating points at this late hour and cast all this blame upon the Church Assembly and the Noble Lord for the lateness of the Measure when it is really the responsibility of the Government. As for the other censures, they are really unworthy of the Debate. I appeal to the House to let this Measure go through, and I hope that the Noble Lord will pay attention to the only constructive criticism advanced by the hon. Lady the Member for East Islington (Mrs. Manning). The one reason why I would support that suggestion is, that, if all the lady Members of the House of Commons were transferred to Bishoprics, we should be rid of them, which I think it would be a very good thing.

Mr. McGOVERN: I desire to associate myself with the protest against bringing forward a Measure of this description at this late hour of the night, in spite of the fact that it is being sponsored by the "Unknown Warrior." The Noble Lord on one or two evenings has been protesting, almost purple with rage, against the gagging of the Opposition in connection with the Land Value Tax. I understand that the Bill can be obtained at the Vote Office, but I was not previously aware of the fact, and have had no opportunity of examining or discussing the questions at issue. Very grave issues may be involved. The hon. Member for North Paddington (Mr. Bracken) was wrong when he suggested that the responsibility lies with the Government for bringing on the discussion at this late hour. An opportunity could have been taken by hon. Members to bring forward various matters on the Adjournment. But I protest strongly
against a Measure of this description being brought forward to-night and given preference, especially when hon. Members opposite almost shouted themselves hoarse against the Rent (Reduction and Control) Bill.

Mr. SPEAKER: Under the Rules of the House this matter is exempted business, and the other is not.

An HON. MEMBER: The hon. Member should learn the procedure.

Mr. McGOVERN: Probably when I have been here as long as you, I shall know it. Some of you have been here a long time, and you do not know much about it. I intend, if an opportunity is available, to register my vote against this Measure being carried through the House to-night. I do not know what it really involves, nor do I believe that a large number of Members who pretend that they understand it know what it involves. They continually claim that they are the custodians of the freedom and the rights of the public outside, and they ought to see that they understand fully what is involved in a Measure of this description taken at such a late hour.

Lord H. CECIL: I desire to reply, very briefly, to the criticisms which have been made. The most important criticism has been directed to Parliamentary procedure rather than to the Measure. That is a point upon which I am largely in sympathy with the critics. It is, unfortunately, very inconvenient that these Measures must be taken after Eleven o'clock. I do not blame the Government. I do not blame anybody. It is a difficulty in carrying on Parliamentary business with which we are all familiar. If I may make a friendly suggestion to those making the criticism, I would remind them that there is a Committee now sitting which is considering questions of Parliamentary procedure, and, if they would make representation to that Committee, perhaps some better means of dealing with these Measures might be found and more opportunities provided for discussing them. It is true to say that it is part of the policy Parliament adopted when it passed the Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act that the details of these Measures should not come before the House but only the main principles of them. That was
partly in order that the Assembly might deal with details and partly in order to relieve this House of burdens which were too heavy for it to bear. Accordingly, if you want to judge the details, it was the indention that you should go by the very elaborate report which the Ecclesiastical Committee present to Parliament, reviewing the whole matter. If any hon. Member feels that he ought not to assent to the Measure, he can vote against it, but if, after the fullest consideration, he feels it should be assented to, then he votes in favour of it. With that, I leave the question of procedure.
Then we were asked about emblems. I will not go into the controversial aspect of it, but provisions in regard to such things are to be found on page 10 of the Measure. Paragraph (ii) of Sub-section 2 of Clause 10 provides that the scheme may prescribe the purposes for which the Cathedral Chapter may act as Administrative Chapter in regard to the structure and fabric fittings, ornaments, furniture, and monuments of the Cathedral. That would no doubt cover the emblems to which reference has been made. With regard to the transfer of property, it should be understood that the transfer is to the Ecclesiastical Commission and subject, of course, to the Trust which originally governed the property. That does not really means that the property is taken away. What is really taken away is the administration of the property, which is merely following out what has already been done.

Mr. KELLY: Why is Manchester excluded?

Lord H. CECIL: Because of the very peculiar character of the endowments of Manchester, which are largely a matter of sentiment and which are very old. The fabric of Manchester Cathedral was originally endowed by combining together certain endowments. There is a strong sentiment about land, and hon. Members on the other side of the House know that when you want to carry a Measure through the Legislature you have to make exemptions. As to salaries, I do not think there is any intention of paying salaries to all the members of the commission, but power was taken, and I think such power is in the interests
of the poor man rather than the rich man. If you do not provide salaries at all, it means that you are obliged to select people with private means who are able to serve without remuneration. The power to give salaries enables you to use the talents and services of those who are not able to do without any remuneration. I think hon. Members can trust the Ecclesiastical Commissioners to watch over their funds with an eye to the strictest economy and not to give salaries unless they are in the interests of the churches.
Then I was asked whether there was any difference between the words "duly safeguarded" and "fully safeguarded." It is really an accident. "Fully" is often used, but "duly" has been used on this particular occasion. Of course, it is true that the rights of His Majesty's subjects are often modified, and, in that sense, invaded, by all Church Measures, for there is hardly a Church Measure which does not affect anybody's rights. The point is whether the rights are sufficiently protected, and it does not matter whether the word "duly" or "fully" is used. It was a mere scatch of the pen which decided the word.

Mr. MANDER: I asked a specific question about the sale of church property and whether that was protected by the Measure.

Lord H. CECIL: I have looked into that, and I find it makes no difference. The law is left unchanged.

Mrs. MANNING: The Noble Lord has not answered my question.

Lord H. CECIL: The Measure does not deal with distinctions between the sexes, in respect of the Christian Ministry, but it is always open to ladies to wear gaiters.

Resolved,
That this House directs that the Cathedrals Measure be presented to His Majesty for the Royal Assent, in accordance with the provisions of the Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act, 1919.

It being after half-past Eleven of the Clock, Mr. Speaker adjourned the Rouse, without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at Four Minutes before Twelve o'Clock.